Sitting of 3 May 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS —Ordered —First Reading—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [252].
Committee—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) [217] [Third Night]—R.P.; Truck [109] —R.P.
Committee—Report —Quarries (re-comm.) [239];
Colonial Service (Pensions) [158–251].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS —Ordered —First Reading —Gas and Water * [248]; Gas * [249]; Water* [250].

NOTICE OF MOTION.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) —THE VOLUNTEERS —THE CAPITATION GRANT.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: In consequence of the disastrous financial effect the decision announced yesterday as regards the Capitation Grant by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will have upon corps of Volunteer Infantry, I beg to give Notice that I shall take the earliest possible opportunity of moving—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the adoption in their entirety of the Recommendations of the recent Committee is absolutely essential to the welfare and stability of the Volunteer Force, and that for the Government to punish Volunteers efficient in drill, but unable, owing to accidental circumstances, to come up to an arbitrary standard of shooting, by deprivation of two thirds of the grant heretofore allowed, involving a fine to individuals or corps of twenty shillings per annum, and by practical dismissal, after two failures, is impolitic in the interests of the Country, and unjust to those who sacrifice much time and money to submit themselves to training for National defence."

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA—THE GUNPOWDER FACTORY AT MADRAS.
  MR. MALLOCKasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of India has ordered the Gunpowder Factory at Madras to be closed; and, whether the Madras Government has applied to the Secretary of State for India to cancel this order; and, if so, whether he will be able to accede to the application made by the Madras Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Government of India have ordered the Gunpowder Factory at Madras to be closed, and the Madras Government have applied to the Secretary of State for India to cancel that order. The matter is now under consideration.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND) —POSTAL BUSINESS AT BALLYSHANNON.
  SIR, CHARLES LEWISasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received a largely-signed Memorial from inhabitants of Ballyshan-non; whether he has inquired into the foundation of the complaint made, as to the premises of the present Postmaster being unsuitable for the business and the convenience of the public; and, if he shall find it advisable, whether he will take steps to secure that the postal business shall be conducted in a more suitable and convenient situation?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have received the Memorial referred to, and inquiry has been made on its subject by the District Surveyor. The Ballyshannon Office being vacant, the opportunity will be taken to remove it from the Mall, where it has been for some years, and place it in a more convenient position. I think no reasonable objection can be taken to the proposed site; for, although Mr. Mitchell's premises are in the south side of the town, they are within a few minutes' walk of the principal business establishments. A letter box will be placed in the main street at the corner of the Mall.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—SAVING LIFE AT SEA —THE LINE-THROWING GUN.
  MR. HOAREasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether any Report has been received on the use of the line-throwing gun as a means of saving life at sea; and, if not, whether the Board of Trade will institute an inquiry with the view of ascertaining how far the gun is suitable for wreck service, either on sea or from the land?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Several Reports have been received respecting the line-throwing gun referred

  685
  to by the hon. Member, one of which refers to experiments made specially at Shoeburyness. These Reports will be laid before the Select Committee which is appointed to inquire into the subject of means for saving life at sea.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) —VOTING PAPERS IN THE BANTRY UNION.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether information has reached him that, at the scrutiny of votes for the Glenlough Electoral Division of the Bantry Union, two voting papers purporting to have been signed by Ellen Kingston and Cornelius Brien were proved to be forgeries, and were recognized by the Returning Officer of the Bantry Union as papers that were left at the lodge of Mr. J. E. Barrett, J.P.; whether two genuine papers were also taken at the houses of Ellen Kingston and Cornelius Brien; whether the numbers on the forged papers were altered; if Constable Kavanagh acted in accordance with his duty in collecting at the house of the parties above mentioned more voting papers than he distributed; whether he had taken voting papers at a distance from some of the houses where he distributed them, and from persons other than the occupiers, and in some cases against their wishes; and, whether an inquiry will be held as to the manner in which Constable Kavanagh, of Durrus, discharged his duties at the recent Poor Law elections of the Bantry Union?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The statements in the first two paragraphs of this Question appear to be substantially correct. The Returning Officer reports that the number on one of the forged papers seems to have been altered, but not on the other. He is of opinion that the constable collected at the houses of the persons named only the papers that he had previously left at the respective houses. I am unable to reply to the fifth paragraph, which contains general statements; but if the hon. Member is still of opinion that the constable acted improperly in the discharge of this duty, and that he will be so good as to communicate with me as to any particular alleged irregularities, further inquiry shall be made.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Have the Government made any inquiry with regard to the forger of the papers?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked for Notice of the Question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely that is a matter which refers to the Criminal Law of the country, and ought to be attended to by the Government.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: In that case I must refer you to the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whether he will take any steps to punish the parties who forged these voting papers?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, that he had never heard of the matter before, and, of course, must make inquiries.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) —USE OF THE COLD PLUNGE BATH AS A PUNISHMENT.
  MR. W. J. CORBET(for Dr. KENNY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the case of "Lamb v. Ashe," tried recently before the Recorder of Dublin, Will he state under what Rule of Privy Council, or Order of Lunacy Department, the use of cold plunge bath is permitted as a punishment for lunatics; whether any Rule was made by Privy Council, or Order issued by Lunacy Department, forbidding the use of the cold plunge bath for such a purpose, on the occasion of the trial for the homicide, in 1872, of a lunatic, named Danford, in the Limerick Asylum, of an attendant in that institution, who was alleged to have caused Danford's death by submersion in a cold plunge bath; and, whether, on that occasion, the Resident Medical Superintendent was forced to resign his office for having permitted the use of the cold plunge bath in Danford's case, and for subsequently partly obliterating the reference to the occurrence in the daily statement book?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Privy Council Rule relied on by Dr. Ashe for ordering the cold plunge bath as a punishment for lunatics is No. 49 of the Special Rules for Dundrum

  687
  Asylum, or No. 79 for ordinary district asylums, both being in identical terms. This Rule recognizes the use of the cold bath as a punitive measure, but with certain safeguards, requiring that it shall be administered only under the express direction of either of the medical officers and in the presence of an attendant or servant. No special Rule or Order was issued after the death of Danford forbidding the use of the cold bath. As regards the ease of the Limerick Resident Medical Superintendent, which relates to some 15 years ago, the Government of the day found that he had committed several irregularities both before and after the death of Danford, and they felt it to be their duty to call upon him to resign. However, as already explained to the House, the circumstances of the Dundrum and Limerick cases are quite dissimilar. I may add that the Irish Government have recently decided that the use of baths for punitive purposes is objectionable, and they have given an order for their discontinuance.

  INDIA—THE MAHARAJAH DHULEEP INGH.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If Maharajah Dhuleep Singh is now drawing any allowance from the Indian Government; and, what is his position?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OP STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Maharajah Dhuleep Singh is not himself at present drawing any allowance from the Indian Government, he having some months ago refused to do so. A portion of his stipend is being paid, with his consent, to the Maharanee and her family. If the latter part of the Question refers to his geographical position, I do not know; but his legal and political position is altogether unaltered.

  ADMIRALTY—IMPURE WATER SUPPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS AT MALTA.
  MR. NORTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty (with reference to the supply of impure water to Her Majesty's ships at Malta, resulting in a serious outbreak of enteric fever), Whether any further Report
  688
  on the subject has been received from the Naval authorities at that port; and, if so, will he lay it upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. FORWOOD): As requested by my hon. Friend, I have inquired further into this question; and I find, from a Report just received from Malta, that prior to the year 1885 occasional testings of the water in the tanks took place. Subsequently, however, to December, 1885, a monthly analysis of the water has been instituted; and if arty tank is found to contain water unfit for drinking it is run off, and the tank thoroughly cleaned out. The Report from Malta is somewhat lengthy; but I shall have much pleasure in showing it to my hon. Friend, if he would like to see it.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT—RESULTS FEES.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland refuse to pay results fees to teachers for passes obtained by pupils in "physical geography," in cases in which the Science and Art Department have paid for passes obtained by the same pupils in "physiography" within the previous six months; and, whether he is aware that the Science and Art Department considers the two subjects as different, and pay for passes in "physiography," though the Board of National Education have previously paid for passes in '' physical geography "obtained by the same pupils within six months previous?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Commissioners of National Education understand that the general subject of physiography embraces physical geography; and they accordingly decline, under their Rules, to pay results fees for physical geography when the pupils are enrolled in physiography classes under the Department of Science and Art within the six months preceding the results examination. I am not aware what the practice of the Science and Art Department is with regard to this matter; but the Commissioners of National Education must clearly be bound by their own Regulations.

  CIVIL SERVICE COPYISTS—THE TREASURY MINUTE.
  MR. FLYNNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Treasury Minute of December last, relating to Civil Service Copyists, so far as to enable "registered service" to count in lieu of "actual service" for bonus, and also for gratuity on retirement, and service on the Census of 1881 to be reckoned in favour of writers whose names were retained on the Register during the period of such service; and, whether he will extend the £7 a-year retiring gratuity to any period of service without limit, and allow parts of years to be proportionately paid for, as in the case of pensions to members of the permanent service of the Crown?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Copyists are only employed as required. When there is no employment for them in a Government Office they frequently obtain employment elsewhere; but their names are retained on the Register of the Civil Service Commissioners. The Government cannot allow time during which no service is rendered to the Government to count for pension or gratuity. No application that service on the Census of 1881 may count in favour of copyists who were retained on the Register of the Civil Service Commissioners during the period of such service has been before me. I do not know, therefore, the circumstances of the case, and I am unable to express an opinion with respect to it. I am not prepared to grant gratuities without limit. The Treasury, in fixing a limit, follows the lines of the Rules applied to the whole Departmental writers. It is not the case that the Superannuation Acts allow broken parts of years to count for pension.

  NAVY —CLYDE BRIGADE OF THE ROYAL NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that the Clyde Brigade of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers has no facilities for acquiring the gunnery practice on shore enjoined
  690
  by General Order, No. 5,981, of 18th October, 188G, as necessary to enable the men to earn the Government grant; and, whether, in view of the fact that this valuable force, numbering 140 men and officers, will have to be disbanded if they cannot earn the Government grant, he will consider the possibility of allowing them, at any rate for this year, of going through their drill on board the gunboat Forrester, at present stationed on the Clyde? The hon. Gentleman also asked, whether, the Forrester having left the Clyde, the Government would arrange to have another gunboat stationed there?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Directions were given last week that the Clyde Brigade might drill on the gunboat Forrester, then lying off Greenock. The hon. Gentleman had sent him a telegram stating that the Forrester had since then left for Glasgow. He had no information on the subject; but would make inquiries. Speaking generally, the Government were most anxious to afford all facilities to the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers to train and drill; but there would be some difficulty in permanently stationing a gun boat at each place, as they were rather short of these vessels at present. He would, however, inquire and see what could be done.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—IMPROVED SERVICE IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Postmaster General, with reference to the increased mail accommodation required between Belfast, Newtownards, and Downpatrick, Whether he has received a Memorial from the Town Commissioners of Downpatrick, urging the necessity of improved service; whether he will state the amount for which the Belfast and County Down Railway Company propose to give the increased accommodation required; and, whether he will mention what is the amount which the Treasury offers to give to the Railway Company for such additional service?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES)in reply, said, that, as he had informed the hon. Member in reply to his Question of April 25, he had entered into further negotiations with the Belfast and County

  691
  Down Railway Company respecting the improvement of the mail service. Negotiations of thi3 kind could not be concluded in a day; and while they were proceeding, Questions as to the terms offered or demanded were more likely to prevent than to facilitate a settlement.
  MR. M'CARTAN: May I ask the Tight hon. Gentleman when these negotiations are likely to conclude? They have now been going on for some months, and the people are kept out of the required accommodation.
  MR. RAIKES: I can assure the hon. Member that no effort on my part has been wanting to bring them to a conclusion.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT (SUB-COMMISSIONERS).
  DR. FOXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When it is probable a Sub-Commission will sit to hear land eases from the Edenderry Union, which have already appeared twice on the list?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners report that the Leinster Sub-Commission recently sat in the County of Kildare and the King's County, in which counties Edenderry Union is situate; and that the next sitting cannot be held until the Sub-Commission has made the circuit of the remaining counties of the Province, which will probably be in the autumn of this year.

  ARMY—MILITARY PRISONS—REPORT ON DISCIPLINE AND MANAGEMENT (1885).
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken to remedy the defects pointed out in the Report on the Discipline and Management of the Military Prisons (1885)?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The suggestions of the Inspector General of Prisons, to which my hon. Friend refers, have been under the consideration of a Committee, whose Report has only been received about 10 days ago. I have myself only seen it to-day; and, therefore, have not yet been able to decide
  692
  how far its recommendations can be carried out.

  EGYPT —SIR HENRY DRUMMOND WOLFF'S MISSION—THE MILITARY OCCUPATION.
  MR. DILLONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been directed to the following paragraph, which appeared in The Observer of 1st May:—
  "The report that Sir Drummond Wolff has proposed to fix a term of five years for the continuance of our military occupation of Egypt is calculated, if taken by itself, to create an erroneous impression. We have reason to believe that the proposed engagement to withdraw our troops at the close of 1892 is coupled with two conditions. The first is that nothing is to occur in the interval to necessitate the continuance of our occupation, a necessity of which we are to remain the sole judges; the second is that in the event of our withdrawal we are to be authorized by the Sultan to return at our own good will to Egypt, to the exclusion of any other Power, and oven of Turkey herself, if there should he any renewal of internal disorders, or any such default in the payment of Egyptian liabilities as might give rise to European intervention;"
  and, whether this is a correct statement of the proposals made to the Porte by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff; and, if not, whether he will state to the House what are the exact nature of these proposals?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I must once more ask the House to excuse me from making such a statement as the hon. Member asks for. Negotiations with the Porte in regard to Egypt are proceeding; and Parliament will be informed of their nature and result, as soon as this can be done consistently with the public interests.

  THE CURRENCY—ISSUE OF COPPER COINS.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the authorities of the Mint will issue copper coins to meet the scarcity created by the withdrawal from circulation of the French coins?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Yes, Sir; English bronze coin is being issued as usual. The Mint has an ample supply to meet the demands occasioned by the withdrawal of the French coins from circulation. It may interest the House to know

  693
  that about £6,000 worth of French bronze coins have been received, and that it is anticipated that the total amount withdrawn from circulation will not exceed £12,000. The Mint have in hand English bronze coin to nearly twice this amount.

  LAW AND POLICE—SOCIALIST MEETINGS —INSTRUCTIONS TO THE POLICE.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Police have special instructions to break up Socialist meetings, or if they act on their own authority in so doing?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: No, Sir; the police have received no special instructions of the kind.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked, whether London would be included among the proclaimed districts?
  [No reply.]

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS— THE SOLICITOR TO THE TREASURY.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Who is the Minister of the Crown responsible for instructions given by the Solicitor to the Treasury to Counsel in a prosecution conducted by the Treasury; whether Mr. Poland, in his application to the magistrate at the Marylebone Police Court, to withhold from a jury the cases of the seven defendants charged before him with riotous conduct, was acting by the direction of a Minister; and, whether his intention to make such application was officially communicated to any Minister? The hon. Member said, he would further ask, whether the Home Secretary desired to withdraw the statement that Mr. Poland was not instructed by the Treasury; also, whether he was aware that five of the defendants, who were not Socialists, were most anxious to appeal, but were prevented doing so owing to the amount of bail—namely, two sureties in £50 each; and, whether, having regard to the position in life of the persons, such bail was not oppressive?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The first of the hon. Member's supplementary Questions is covered by the answer I am about to give to the Question on the Paper; and of the second I shall require Notice. The Question on the Paper does not discriminate between the functions of the Treasury Solicitor, as such solicitor, and his functions as Director of Public Prosecutions. In his latter capacity, he may act either on his own motion or on the instructions of some particular Department. When he acts simply as Solicitor to the Treasury, he acts under the authority of the Minister who instructs him. In this particular case, the usual application was made by the Commissioner of Police for the authority of the Secretary of State for the employment of counsel, and the authority was accordingly given. Such an application is always acceded to, as a matter of course, when the case is one of difficulty, and instructions are formally given through the Treasury Solicitor. When once instructions have been given, it is not the practice for a Minister of the Crown to interfere with the conduct of the case, and he did not do so in this instance. Nor, as a rule, does the Treasury Solicitor interfere with the discretion of counsel in a prosecution of this sort, and the Secretary of State did not so interfere in this case. In the particular line pursued by Mr. Poland, he was not acting under the direction of a Minister. Nor, as far as the Secretary of State is aware, did he communicate his intention to any Minister.

  LAW AND POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—DISTURBANCES AT KEN-NINGTON.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the accounts of the disturbance at Kennington, on Sunday morning last, contained in The Standard of the 2nd instant, and in letters from eye-witnesses published in The Pall Mall Gazette of the same date, and whether those reports are correct; whether, in consequence of the previous disturbance of a Socialist meeting by the "Primrose Society," a Socialist had applied to the Lambeth Police Court for

  695
  protection, and that Chief Inspector Chisholm had thereupon
  "informed the magistrate that in order to stop these disturbances neither party would he permitted to hold these meetings;"
  whether it is a part of the duties of the police, and, if so, since when, and by what authority, to deny to any section of the community their right to hold a public meeting; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances leading to the disturbance, and the action of the police?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has not seen the particular newspaper reports referred to; but he is informed by the Chief Commissioner of Police that it is not a fact that a Socialist applied to the Police Court for protection, or that the Inspector made use of the words quoted. It certainly would be no part of his duty to make any such statement, or to volunteer any statement as to what the future action of the police might be. The Secretary of State sees no reason to make any further inquiry into the matter, which is now the subject of proceedings before a magistrate.

  CHINA—THE CONVENTION —BRITISH TRADE WITH THIBET.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the Convention concluded between the British and Chinese Governments, as the result of Mr. Colman Macaulay's Mission to Pekin, What was the nature of the concessions promised by China in the interests of British trade with Thibet; what progress has been made by the Chinese Government in fulfilling its promises; and, whether all the Papers on the subject will be laid before Parliament?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The agreement with China in regard to trade with Thibet will be found in Article 4 of the Burmah Convention (China No. 5, 1886). As I stated in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. G. W. Balfour) on the 7th of March, Her Majesty's Government entertain no doubt that the Chinese Go-
  696
  vernment will fulfil their engagements under the Convention. There are no Papers that can be laid before Parliament at present.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked, whether the House was to understand that China had hitherto made no progress in fulfilling her promises?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that he was not aware that any steps had yet been taken to open up trade with Thibet; but Her Majesty's Government certainly relied upon the fulfilment of the obligations entered into by China.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE TOBACCO DUTIES.
  MR. HOOPERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Whether he is aware that the process of manufacture, as carried on by the Irish roll tobacco manufacturers, necessitates each manufacturer having a stock of at least three to four weeks supply always on hand; and, if so, whether he would make provision whereby such manufacturers would be enabled to continue to keep their employés at work without heavy loss to them? The hon. Gentleman also asked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had anything to add to the information he gave with reference to the cigar manufacturers?
  MR. J. ROWLANDS(for Mr. BROADHURST)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can now state what, if any, arrangements he has made with regard to the Duty on tobacco, in order to prevent the threatened and great displacement of labour in the cigar-making trade?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Yes, Sir; I am aware that the roll tobacco manufacturers must have a stock of three or four weeks' supply on hand, and I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that the month has been given to allow the manufacturers an opportunity to reduce their stocks to the lowest possible limit. This arrangement was made entirely in the interest of the roll manufacturers, and it was never expected that they would entirely cease working; and there is no reason why they should incur any loss by continuing to work, as they need not reduce their prices till

  697
  their stocks on the 21st of May are exhausted. Having ascertained that the cigar manufacturers stood in a different position from the rest of the trade as regards the disposal of their stocks, and could be treated separately without injustice to its other branches, I have, with a view to avoiding a threatened wholesale discharge of workpeople—while demurring to its necessity—made arrangements by which, under strict precautions against abuse, and under careful supervision, the cigar manufacturers might clear between this and the 21st of May so much tobacco as they would work up in the time, and obtain a rebate of 4d. per lb. upon it at the end of the period.
  MR. HOOPERasked, could the Chancellor of the Exchequer see any objection to extending that privilege to the case of Irish roll manufacturers?
  MR. GOSOHENsaid, he was afraid that was impossible, though he should be glad to do it.
  MR. HOOPERasked, would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to receive a deputation on the subject? In face of the information repeatedly given, that the livelihood of so many persons was threatened for a period, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the justice of allowing a rebate of 4d. on all stocks held at the 21st instant?
  MR. GOSGHENsaid, if it was desired, of course he would receive a deputation; but he demurred entirely to the statement that it was necessary for the manufacturers to discharge their workmen during these three weeks. When the duty was raised 4d. per lb. the manufacturers had precisely the same amount of advantage as they now allege to have of disadvantage; and he could not conceive that great firms would discharge workmen who had served them permanently on account of the small loss that might be incurred during the three weeks by taking out the tobacco at a higher duty.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—STRIKE OF SHIPBUILDERS AT BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will send one of the Inspectors of Factories, or some other competent person, to Belfast, to inquire and report whether the good
  698
  offices of the Government can be carefully employed to bring about a settlement of the dispute which has resulted in a strike of 6,000 shipyard employés?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: So far as Inspectors of Factories are concerned, the practice has always been to prohibit their interference in any trade disputes between masters and workmen; and the Secretary of State thinks it would be undesirable to deviate from this practice. Nor does he think that the Government could undertake to tender their good offices for the settlement of any such dispute, or to send any person to inquire into the matter.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—LORD GRAN-ARD'S ESTATE, CO. LONGFORD— NOTICE TO THE BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many notices of eviction have been served by Lord Granard on the Board of Guardians respecting his Drumlish (County Longford) property; is it the fact that the Government have sent some 100 police to the spot; and, could he state whether any of those families threatened with eviction have only recently been relieved by public charity?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, that owing to the short Notice which had been given of the Question he was unable to supply any information.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: These evictions are going on to-day, and these people are starving.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice —namely, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that evictions on a vast and increasing scale are being carried out in Ireland; whether the practice adopted by the Irish Executive during the administration of his Predecessor of inquiring into the merits of those evictions, and remonstrating with the landlords when their action seemed to be harsh and unjust, is still adhered to; and, whether, in view of the Report

  699
  of Lord Cowper's Commission, the Government would hold out some hope to the House that a stay will be put upon evictions in Ireland until after this House shall have had an opportunity of considering the Relief Bill now before the House of Lords?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have only just got the hon. Gentleman's Question on my arrival in the House. My attention has not been called to the fact that evictions are going on on an increasing scale. With regard to the Question which he asks me, whether I shall continue what he alleges to be the policy of my Predecessor in inquiring into the merits of each case, and putting pressure upon the landlord according to the results of that inquiry, without giving an opinion of how far that is the most judicious course to be pursued by the official responsible for the government of Ireland, I have to say that it is our opinion the proper method of dealing with evictions in Ireland is by legislation; and if hon. Gentlemen will consent to pass the Bill now before the House within any period at all approaching in its length the period which has on similar occasions been taken previously by other Parliaments, the Bill now before the House of Lords will be able to pass through all its stages in this House in time, I believe, to prevent any suffering resulting from the evictions to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he himself any longer gives attention to Irish Questions? I, Mr. Speaker, placed a Question on the Paper with regard to evictions on Lord Granard's property, where the people had been recently fed by public charity, and where they are now absolutely starving. Are we to be loft to the tender mercies of an Irish rack-renter; or will the right hon. Gentleman himself give some attention to the Questions that we put, and give us something like his mediation between us and this rack-renter? I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, has ins attention been called to the Question put by me with regard to evictions on Lord Granard's estate, and in which I asked whether 100 police are at the present moment engaged in evicting men who were lately the subject of State charity, and who are at present starving, and which Ques-
  700
  tion was treated with contempt by the Irish rack-renter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the Question now put has been already answered by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman).

  BOYCOTTING AND INTIMIDATION (IRELAND) —CIRCULAR LETTER TO THE CHIEFS OF POLICE.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as reported, that the Hon. Captain Plunkett has addressed a Circular Letter to the County Inspectors and District Inspectors of Constabulary in his Division, requiring lists of Boycotting and intimidation cases in their respective commands since last September, with mention of what evidence would be available in the event of it being decided to institute prosecutions in individual instances; and, whether Captain Plunkett is acting on orders received from the Executive in issuing the alleged Circular; and, if so, what was the date of its issue?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I am not aware whether the Circular Letter referred to has been issued by Captain Plunkett; but it is not at all improbable that it has, as it, is the duty of Divisional Magistrates in Ireland to obtain local Reports, both for their own information and that of the Executive, on all matters affecting the peace of their districts.

MOTION.

  PRIVILEGE (MR. DILLON AND "THE TIMES" NEWSPAPER).—RESOLUTION.
  [FIRST NIGHT.]
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: Sir, I very much regret, but I feel it to be my duty to call the attention of the House to what I consider to be a grave Breach of Privilege. I hold in my hand The Times newspaper of yesterday. It contains a charge of wilful and deliberate falsehood against an hon. Member of this House, not only in his capacity as a Member of this House and his duty as a Member, but specifically in a speech

  701
  which he made in this House on the 22nd of last month. It is expressly by no inference, but by direct challenge, that the charge is brought against his conduct as a Member of this House, in the debates of this House, and the charge against him in this journal is, that he has deliberately, and of his own knowledge, made false statements when he was dealing in this House with a statement made by another and a noble Member. It is in regard to that statement, and to no other, that I desire to draw the attention of the House to what I conceive to be a most grave and serious matter. In order to make the matter thoroughly understood, it will only be necessary for me to remind the House that the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), some days previously to the 22nd of last month, made an explanation with reference to certain statements of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), which had been made some days before in debate. The noble Marquess entered into a long explanation as to the groundwork of the charges made against, among other persons, the hon. Member for East Mayo. What followed was this. On the 22nd of last month the hon. Member for East Mayo gave a long and deliberate explanation in detail in answer to the statements which had been previously made by the noble Marquess. Now, Sir, what has happened, has been this. It will only be necessary to read three extracts from the article which appears in The Times newspaper of yesterday, and which is headed "Parnellism and Crime," "Mr. Dillon "—who I need not point out to the House is the hon. Member for East Mayo—" and P. J. Sheridan." The first extract to which I invite the serious attention of the House is in these words—
  "Mr. Dillon, M.P., has attempted upon two several occasions within the last few days to excuse his own connection and that of his brother Members of Parliament with P. J. Sheridan, Invincible, dynamiter, and assassin. We propose to test his statements as a sample of Parnellite testimony. We shall show that nearly all Mr. Dillon's material allegations are domonstrably and flagrantly false, and that Mr. Dillon might readily have informed himself of their falsehood had he chosen so to do. Mr. Dillon's defence amounts to this—that Sheridan refrained from murderous conspiracy while actually in Mr. Dillon's employment, and that the Nationalist Party hope he will 'have no occasion' to return to the ways of Fenianism, because they intend to realise the ends of
  702
  Fenianism themselves. We shall prove that the assertion of fact is false, and the hope groundless; that Sheridan did plot murder while he was an acknowledged Land League agent; and that he ostentatiously recanted the abjuration which he is said to have made and publicly proclaimed himself a relapsed dynamiter."
  I pass over all the detailed evidence, or alleged evidence, which intervenes between that statement and the next statement, which I consider to be a Breach of the Privileges of this House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he proposes to bring-before the House a question of Privilege, which is a definite matter; and; the question of Privilege which I understand he is going to raise is an article which appeared in The Times newspaper with reference to the hon. Member for East Mayo. I do not think that the hon. Baronet is entitled to review the whole of a preceding debate upon a question which refers to a specific article in a newspaper which appeared yesterday, and which contains the charge which I understand he is about to deal with as a question of Privilege.
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: With submission to you, Sir, I am now reading at this moment from the newspaper article.
  MR. SPEAKER: the hon. Baronet spoke of a previous debate in this House in which the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale and the hon. Member for East Mayo took part.
  SIR. CHARLES LEWIS: I speak with submission. I was not using any words of my own; I was reading from The Times. [Cries of "Go on!" "Read on!" "Read away!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR. CHARLES LEWIS: I will now, Sir, in order to put myself right with you, Sir, read verbatim, if I may be allowed, and entirely and slavishly from the article—
  "The material parts of this statement are absolutely irreconcilable with Mr. Dillon's story. Mr. Dillon says that Sheridan's connection with the 'constitutional organization' ceased upon his arrest, and was never renewed. Ford, on the contrary, declares that Sheridan resumed 'his usual labours of speaking and organizing' on his release, and continued them until Mr. Parnell's arrest; that, thereupon, he helped to transfer the headquarters of the League to Paris, and from thence 'carried on the work through the Ladies' Land League and other agencies' until May or June of 1882. Ford's narrative was written a comparatively

  703
  short time after the transactions it relates; he had no apparent object in falsifying it. He had Sheridan himself at his elbow to supply the information. Fortunately, we are not driven to choose between the word of Mr. Dillon and the word of Patrick Ford and P. J. Sheridan, The testimony of the latter is corroborated, and the testimony of the former is refuted, by the unanswerable evidence of contemporary papers."
  I come now to the climax of the article, and that which contains the gravamen of the whole charge on which I shall base my Motion. The article says, in conclusion—
  "Our present business, however, is not to prove that Sheridan is a murderer and a contriver of murders, or even to show that he organized murderous conspiracies when a paid agent of the 'constitutional organization' and a trusted member of the Land League Executive. We have treated certain episodes in this scoundrel's career in, perhaps, tedious detail, to demonstrate once for all the incredible falsehood and effrontery of Parnellite apologists. we have examined an elaborate explanation made by one of the most respected of Mr. Parnell's lieutenants from his place in Parliament, and we have shown that it is a tissue of gross and palpable falsehoods."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Baronet must not conclude with a Motion? Of course, this is a question of Breach of Privilege, and we are entitled to know whether he intends to conclude with a Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is compelled to conclude with a Motion, as he has raised a question of Privilege.
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I intend to take the invariable course, which is to ask that this article should be read by the Clerk at the Table; and upon this article I shall make a Motion. I will proceed with the extract—
  "Whether Mr. Dillon was or was not conscious that the statements he was making were untrue is a point of little public moment. But it is right and necessary that the world should know that 'the Bayard of the League' has given an entirely fictitious account of a series of important transactions in which he himself and several of his leading Colleagues in the House were principal actors. We are reduced to this alternative—Mr. Dillon either refrained from all serious efforts of recollection and inquiry, and recklessly palmed off upon the House as ascertained facts within his personal knowledge a mass of confused, inaccurate, and unexamined memories, or he deliberately told the House a detailed story which he knew to be untrue. In either case several of his Colleagues must have known that his statements were unfounded."
  704
  Now, Sir, the course which I thought it proper to pursue, under the circumstances, was to write this letter to the hon. Member for East Mayo, which was delivered to him, I believe, about midday or early this afternoon —"Sir Charles Lawis presents his compliments to Mr. Billon"—[Laughter.] I do not see why, in this case, I should disregard the ordinary courtesies of life—
  "Sir Charles Lewis presents his compliments to Mr. Dillon, and begs leave to draw his attention to an article in The Times charging him with deliberate and intentional untruth in his explanatory speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 22nd ultimo. It is the intention of Sir Charles Lewis to bring this matter before the House as a grave Breach of Privilege; but should Mr. Dillon, as the gentleman chiefly and primarily concerned, desire to introduce the subject in vindication of his own character, Sir Charles Lewis will, on receiving an intimation to that effect, make way for Mr. Dillon, provided it is done to-day. Sir Charles Lewis reserves to himself the right to read this letter to the House."
  [Laughter and ironical cheers.] Well, Sir, I will make no remark upon the cheers which have proceeded from the other side of the House than this—that if hon. Members of this House, when a charge of wholesale and wilful falsehood is made against an hon. Member in connection with his conduct in the course of debate, think that it is a matter of no importance, I venture to disagree with them. In these extracts which I have read there is no possible evasion or escape from the result that a Member of this House is charged with having uttered a wilful and deliberate falsehood in the course of debate, with the intention to deceive the House. It is not necessary for me to repeat over again the extraordinarily strong language used in this article. Every gentleman is the guardian of his own honour. It is not for me to suggest what course any Member of this House should take; but what I venture to say is this—that never in the history of this Parliament have such charges been made in any public channel of communication such as the The Times newspaper, and have been passed without notice being taken of them. But while every man is the guardian of his own honour, this House ought to be the guardian of its own honour; and though certain persons may say that such charges, made with such circumstantial surroundings and detail, do not require to be noticed,

  705
  and only deserve the contempt of hon. Members against whom they are made, I venture to say that this House ought to take notice of them, and in whatever light it may regard the character of an hon. Member as a politician, is bound to take up this article and to resent the assault made upon the character of its Members, unless it can be justified and proved at the Bar of the House. I am not going to detain the House any longer on this occasion; but I shall have to make a Motion afterwards. I wish now to move, in the ordinary course, that the extracts from this article be read at the Table.
  Complaint made to the House by Sir Charles Lewis, Member for North Antrim, of certain passages in The Times of the 2nd of May:—
  The said Paper was delivered in, and the passage complained of read, as followeth: —
  "Our present business, however, is not to prove that Sheridan is a murderer and a contriver of murders, or even to show that he organized murderous conspiracies when a paid agent of the 'Constitutional Organisation,' and a trusted member of the Land League Executive. we have treated certain episodes in this scoundrel's career in perhaps tedious detail, to demonstrate once for all the incredible falsehood and effrontery of Parnellite apologists. We have examined an elaborate explanation made by one of the most respected of Mr. Parnell's lieutenants from his place in Parliament, and we have shown that it is a tissue of gross and palpable falsehoods. Whether Mr. Dillon was or was not conscious that the statements he was making were untrue, is a point of little public moment. But it is right and necessary that the world should know that 'the Bayard of the League' has given an entirely fictitious account of a series of important transactions in which he himself and several of his leading Colleagues in the House were principal actors. We are reduced to this alternative—Mr. Dillon either refrained from all serious efforts of recollection and inquiry, and recklessly palmed off upon the House, as ascertained facts within his personal knowledge, a mass of confused, inaccurate, and unexamined memories, or he deliberately told the House a detailed story which he know to be untrue. In either ease, several of his Colleagues must have known that his statements wore unfounded. The party sat exulting by, and endorsed the fabrication."
  SIR CHARLES LEWISsaid: I now beg to move that the publication in The Times newspaper of the 2nd of May, of the article headed "Parnellism and Crime," is a Breach of the Privileges of this House.
  MR. MUNTZ: I beg to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the publication in The Times newspaper of the 2nd of May, of the article headed 'Parnellism and Crime,' constitutes a breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Sir Charles Lewis.)
  MR. CHILDERS: As a point of Order, I beg to submit that, according to the ruling in Sir Erskine May's book, it is necessary, in the first place, that the hon. Baronet should state the name of the printer and publisher whom it is desired to bring before the House?
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: I do not know whether this is the proper time for doing that; but I may say that the name of the printer is George Edward Wright.
  An hon. MEMBER: Who is the publisher?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: And the proprietor?
  MR. SPEAKER: With reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), I may say that the first step is that the Motion be put, "That this constitutes a Breach of Privilege." It is for the House to decide that question, and also what further steps ought to be taken.
  MR. DILLON: Must that Motion be decided before anyone is entitled to address the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I will put the Motion first, and then any hon. Gentleman will be entitled to address the House. The Question is, "That the publication in The Times newspaper of the 2nd of May, of the article headed 'Parnellism and Crime' is a Breach of the Privileges of the House."
  MR. DILLON: Mr. Speaker, I have not, so far as I am concerned personally, the slightest objection to urge against this Motion. As far as I am personally concerned, I welcome it, and I have only one objection against it, and that is, that it will inevitably lead to a great deal of waste of the time of the House. Before I make any observations on the charge levelled at me by the hon. Baronet, I would like to ask you, Sir, a few questions as to the course of procedure, of which I confess I am entirely ignorant. I want to know what course this debate will take, and whether, in the event of its being determined that this

  707
  is a Breach of Privilege, and that the printer be had up before the Bar of the House, at what stage it will be most convenient for me to make a detailed reply to these charges, inasmuch as I only read them carefully for the first time about an hour ago, it will be necessary to have a little time to look into these detailed statements. Therefore, I ask you, Sir, what is the usual course of procedure, as it may be more convenient to answer these statements at some other period than the present? Before I sit down, having asked that question, I have only to say, with regard to the course adopted by the hon. Baronet, that I was under the impression that your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the occasion lately when the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) brought forward an analogous case, was that it was not open to us to bring forward attacks made in the newspapers as questions of Privilege; and I may add that it has been my practice, since I became a Member of this House, to abstain from trespassing upon the time of the House, or wasting its time by noticing the repeated attacks of newspapers, which I have always treated with contempt.
  MR. SPEAKER: With regard to the questions put to me by the hon. Member for East Mayo, I may tell him, in the first place, that I have not seen the article in any detail until it was shown to me not long ago. As to the exact Procedure in the case it is this. I have put the Motion to the House that the words contained in the article constitute a Breach of the Privileges of the House. That, of course, will be for the House to decide, and if the House decides that a Breach of Privilege has been committed, a Motion may be made that certain persons do attend at the Bar of this House. But, as the hon. Member says, he is not prepared at this moment to enter into a detailed statement in reference to these charges made by The Times newspaper, and read to-day by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim, the debate can be adjourned; and I need not say that if it is adjourned it will retain the same place and privilege of priority as it does at the present moment. With regard to the other question, there is no analogy whatever between the case brought forward by the hon. Member for West Belfast and the case now before the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I wish to state that I was entirely unaware of the intention of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) to raise this question until I came down to the House. It appears to me, Sir, that the course which you have suggested is the proper course to take, as the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has stated that he has not had an opportunity to consider fully the details of the charges made in The Times newspaper, which have been read by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim. He has indicated his desire—I think I am correctly interpreting him—to make a statement to the House with reference to them.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. The difficulty I felt myself placed in was this—that I did not know exactly what position to take up with regard to the Motion. I distinctly stated that I did not wish to postpone the matter. If the House decides that it is a Breach of Privilege and directs that the offender be brought to the Bar, I am perfectly prepared to face The Times newspaper, but I do not intend—I have no desire to enter into any personal statement or defence. The reason I asked the question was that if it is decided that this is a Breach of Privilege, and if you bring the printer and publisher of The Times newspaper to the Bar of this House I am quite prepared to enter into a statement. But I have no desire to do so unless it is declared that this is a Breach of Privilege.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no desire to enter into the question whether the matter constitutes a Breach of Privilege or not, I understand that it is an open question; it is for the House to determine whether the statement contained in this newspaper article which has been read by the hon. Baronet constitutes a Breach of Privilege or not. But there are questions of fact involved, and questions of fact ought not to be argued without Notice and without consideration by this House. I should venture to think that the best course, under all the circumstances of the case, is that we should adjourn the debate. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, Sir, the hon. Member has himself expressed a desire to have some time to look into the matter. I deprecate

  709
  that the time of the House should be unnecessarily wasted by any unnecessary debate or consumption of the time of the House. If it be the wish of the House to consider at once questions of which we have had no notice whatever, I should not seek to interfere with that decision; but I think it would be more fair and reasonable to all parties, to the hon. Member himself, and to the hon. Baronet behind me, and more suitable to the serious questions involved in the statements made to the House, if further time should be allowed for consideration. I therefore beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Of all the unreasonable propositions I have ever hoard made in this House, the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) to shunt this debate is the most unreasonable. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) has made a series of charges against the hon. Member for East Mayo, founded upon statements which have appeared in The Times newspaper, and which he says form a Breach of the Privileges of this House, whatever the hon. Member for East Mayo might say with regard to them. Supposing that a man says that I am a murderer. That may or may not be so, but any statement made by me that I am not a murderer would make it less a Breach of the Privileges of this House. The House assumes, as a matter of course, that every one of its Members, including the hon. Baronet, is an honourable man, and therefore any statement made by the hon. Member for East Mayo in no way affects the question whether the charges form a Breach of the Privileges of this House or not. A statement of this character the House can decide upon its merits, bearing in mind what is due to the dignity of the House, and if the House declares that the charges form a Breach of its Privileges, then will come the time for my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo to make his reply, and the House will deal with the charges in a proper manner —whatever that manner may be. But surely the House is now in a position to decide whether a series of libellous statements affecting character form a Breach of Privilege or not. The last time the hon. Baronet called the attention of the House to a Breach of Privilege
  710
  was when he complained of a statement in The World that he wore a white waistcoat.
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: The hon. and learned Member is not correct. I never brought that under the notice of the House as a Breach of Privilege.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: It is a very convenient thing for the hon. Baronet to have forgotten the fact, but if he has forgotten it I have not.
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: Will the hon. Member favour me with the year, the month, and the day when I did so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If the hon. Baronet can give us the year, the month, and the day, and the other particulars of his charges against my hon. Friend, I will also supply him with the particulars he asks for. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for the adjournment of the House is most unreasonable. We ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends that the time of the House should be wasted by one of his own Party, apparently with his own connivance, and why, after having allowed a supporter, without a single word of protest, to advertise The Times, and to give Mr. John Walter the step in the Peerage which he desires, he should then, having allowed the hon. Baronet to give a poisonous stab which may or may not be suited to certain natures, he comes down, and instead of moving the closure—which is more in his line—he should, in order to save the time of the House, move the adjournment of the debate. I must say, that for the right hon. Gentleman to take such a course is, at least, most unreasonable. The right hon. Gentleman must have known what was going to take place, and if he wished to have saved the time of the House he should have made an appeal to the hon. Baronet at the proper time; but, having allowed the hon. Baronet to bring the matter forward, the least he can do is to allow the debate to proceed some little way; but instead of doing that the right hon. Gentleman makes a Motion, knowing that, in accordance with the strict rule of the House, every speaker is compelled to confine himself strictly to the question of the adjournment of the debate. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. As yet I have not had an opportunity of reading The Times, but copies

  711
  can soon be obtained, and I shall be happy to do so. Let the Motion be withdrawn, let us get a copy of this, and then the charges can easily be digested, and we shall be able to dispose of them in a proper manner. I do not ask that each of the 670 Members should be supplied with a copy; one will be sufficient. I certainly think the right hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw the Motion. These charges have been made by an hon. Member whom the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has lately promoted to the rank of a Baronet; and it has been distinctly stated by the hon. Baronet that they have been made in the interests of the House, and in the interests of Her Majesty's Government. [Cries of "No!"] Surely, the hon. Baronet is a faithful follower of Her Majesty's Government —he has been epauletted by them, and elevated into one of their recognized champions. Under the circumstances, I must say that the Government are taking a most unfair course towards the Irish Party. If a Motion of this kind is accepted, what will the supporters of the Government do? They will go to the country and crow, and pretend that we wanted an adjournment—that we are anxious to shelve these charges. We are not anxious to shelve them. We are anxious to deal with them when they are brought forward in a proper manner. When the extracts from the article in The Times were read at the Table, there was such a constant "buzz" in the House that we were unable to hear what the words were. We heard the name of "P. J. Sheridan" mentioned, but we have heard that name pretty frequently. We presume it was a repetition of the old and stale charges, and we are perfectly ready to deal with them. Any statement The Times may have to make against my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo will not affect the House at large. Any statement my hon. Friend may make will not affect his Colleagues. I, therefore, think that the right hon. Gentleman has been most ill-advised in the course which he has taken in moving the adjournment of the debate, which is practically giving the traditional day's start to the liar which is always of so much advantage in a lie. When these charges are brought forward in a proper way in this House, the Irish Members will be as they have usually been as
  712
  able to face them as the hon. Baronet was unable to face the charge of corruption at Derry.
  MR. DILLON: I am bound to resist to the best of my ability the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury seems to have completely misunderstood the few words I addressed to you, Sir, in regard to the course of procedure upon the action which has been taken by the hon. Baronet. These charges were made against me in The Times newspaper, and, as I stated on a previous occasion in this House, I should never, as far as I am concerned, think of wasting five minutes of the time of this House on any charge which The Times—or any other newspaper of that class—might bring against me. But when an hon. Member of this House takes upon himself to write the letter which he has done. I can only say that if he had not brought this Motion I should have directed your attention, Sir, to it as being a gross breach of courtesy and good breeding, if not of the Privileges of this House, because the letter plainly charges me with deliberate falsehood, and with cowardice to boot, and then having written that letter—a most improper letter for any Member of the House to write to another—he comes down to this House and practically repeats the charges by the Motion he has made. I am, therefore, entitled to demand—although I am only an humble Member of this House—I am entitled to demand, at the hands of the Government, that that charge shall be brought to an issue here without further delay, and that the country and the supporters of the hon. Member opposite shall not be told to-morrow that I played the part of a coward here to-day; and as I am charged by the hon. Baronet with being, and that I shrank from facing this issue or requested any delay. That would be an utterly false statement of my position. My position is this—I deliberately say that the two columns which appear in The Times are calumnies, base and atrocious calumnies, and are deliberate, malicious, and abominable misrepresentations of the truth. I am prepared to face the printer and publisher of The Times at any moment, and more especially when he is brought here by the vote of this House, and to prove that he is himself—that which he charges me

  713
  with being—a foul and cowardly liar. I seek no time to make my defence, but I deny the right of the hon. Baronet to put me on my defence until he brings my accuser to that Bar, when a Motion of this kind is made. The reason, Sir, that I asked for your instructions in the matter was that I did not wish to place myself in the position of opposing this Motion. I support the Motion. I want the printer of The Times there at that Bar. And if he be brought there I shall prove to conviction that he is as base and as cowardly a liar as he wishes to make me out to be.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY): I take part in this debate with great reluctance, and I think I may be permitted to do so if I say at the outset that I do so as amicus curiœ, and in order to suggest, if possible, to the House what I think ought to be done. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) has read certain extracts from a newspaper, and the hon. Member for North Longford says—" We have not seen these extracts from The Times." I understood, Sir, that even you, in the incidental remarks you made, said that you had not seen them in detail. They are not only fresh to you, but I believe that very few hon. Members have been able to study them closely. The extracts have doubtless been read at the Table; but I venture to say, with the greatest respect to our able Clerk, that the reading of them at the Table did not convoy any accurate knowledge to the House of the contents of the article. As the vast majority of the Members of the House have not carefully studied those articles, it would be extremely dangerous to the character of the House as a tribunal seeking to do right between all the parties concerned, not only hon. Members of the House, but persons outside, to proceed to decide the question whether the articles are not a Breach of Privilege. Upon that ground, I, therefore, suggest that the Motion for the adjournment of the debate should be agreed to, and that the debate should be adjourned until Thursday next, the latest day to which it would be adjourned. I do not make that suggestion because I think that the hon. Member for East Mayo desires to put aside these charges. It must be admitted that he has made a most eloquent pro-
  714
  test. Between now and Thursday hon. Members can have the article in their hands, and have an opportunity of considering it. If the House does, on Thursday, come to the conclusion that the article is a libel and a Broach of the Privileges of the House, I have no doubt that the House will not hesitate to follow up the consequences of that conclusion—one of which, I apprehend, would be bringing the offender of the Privileges of the House before the Bar of the House. The hon. Member for East Mayo will not be injured in any degree by the delay. I think the character of the House requires that such a delay should occur before the House proceeds with a matter which involves the examination of an article which may be now to many hon. Members. I may further say, in support of postponement, that, on hearing the article read, I saw a manifest discrepancy—I do not know whether it is important or not—between the article and what the hon. Member appears to have thought he has found in the article. I mention that as an i lustration of the necessity for appealing to hon. Members, and especially to those who are, and may, justifiably and properly, be excited by the article being brought before this Assembly, to agree to an adjournment, so that we may approach, in a proper temper, the examination and the consideration of the article on Thursday next.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of giving what humble support I may to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) who has just sat down. I feel that the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) has made is, in all the circumstances of the case, the wisest Motion that could be made, not only on the ground that it would be very convenient to hon. Members to have the opportunity of examining with care the passages complained of, but also on the ground that the House of Commons, at the present day, cannot, I imagine, be too careful in guarding against the multiplication of questions of Privilege. It appears to me that we should not hastily or rashly come to the conclusion that a claim to bring any matter before this House as a question of Privilege is necessarily a Breach of the Privileges of the House,

  715
  or a matter with which the House of Commons only can deal. There are other matters which might be examined which, undoubtedly, would be Breaches of Privilege, and which only the House could deal with; but there are other matters which the House of Commons had better leave to the Courts of Law. In so far as Breaches of Privilege partake of the nature of libel upon individuals, they are matters which, I think, the House of Commons should be chary of entertaining. The House of Commons cannot afford any adequate remedy to a person injured by a libel such as that which is complained of now. Suppose you had the printer and publisher of a libel at the Bar of the House, there is no penalty you could inflict upon him beyond imprisonment; but, suppose the printer and publisher of The Times has been guilty of a libel, is proceeded against in a Court of Law, and is convicted by a jury, then the penalty may be inflicted which may be of a most severe character. Therefore, what I would impress upon the House is this—we ought to be most careful not to admit that it is in the power of any newspaper to publish statements about hon. Members of the House of such a character as may at any moment produce a privileged interruption to our ordinary Business. That seems to me to be the danger involved in this matter. If you admit the right of The Times to make statements against a Member in respect of the debates of this House which are to be met subsequently at the Bar of the House, it is in the power of any newspaper to seek notoriety by writing libellous attacks upon Members of the House and being brought to the Bar to support them. Therefore, I advocate adjournment because I am anxious that those who have experience of the practice of the House, such as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and others, should examine the matter, and see whether, even if the statements complained of are libellous, they are still matters which ought to be treated as a Breach of the Privileges of the House. It is with no wish to decide partially as between one side and the other that I am anxious that the Motion of the Government should be agreed to. The liberty of the Press is so important, and has been so extended, that the House of
  716
  Commons should be most careful, in such a grave matter, not to take any false or hasty step.
  MR. SEXTON: The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) has suddenly grown astonishingly timid and circumspect. He himself has not been ashamed in recent speeches in this country, when he was not face to face with us, to avail himself of the currency of these scandalous and miserable charges for the sake of gaining a Party advantage. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), the Minister responsible for the affairs of our country, has not been ashamed to refer, in express terms, to the charges which are the subject of debate, and to give them the advantage of the further currency to be obtained by his political position, and the expression of his opinion that they were well founded. For some time past Gentlemen of the first position in this House have, from time to time, in various forms of language more or less direct, given countenance and currency to charges of this kind. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington is not ashamed to endeavour to place us in a position of further disadvantage by obtaining delay. Sir, we have been pursued for years by moral assassins. Our position in this country has been rendered painful, and in this House has been rendered most intolerable, and it is becoming a question necessary for us to consider whether it can be any longer endured. It is, at a moment like this, not ashamed of reaping advantage from these charges, the noble Lord comes up and endeavours to induce the House to consent to further delay—at a time when an hon. Member from whom we never expected a friendly turn —the hon. Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis)—has made an apparently successful effort in the direction in which our efforts were unsuccessful. I will remind you. Sir, that when we put Questions from this side of the House with reference to The Times you, Sir, informed us that you could not allow the matter to be raised without a Notice of Motion being put upon the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I never informed the right hon. Gentleman or the House to that effect. After the first

  717
  article had appeared in The Times, the question was put to me whether I regarded that as a matter of Privilege, and I laid down the limits of a question of Privilege, and I said, that, in my opinion, no question of Privilege had arisen; but, subsequently, some weeks alter the appearance of the first article, I used these words—"I am far from saying that questions of Privilege have not arisen."
  MR. SEXTON: I am sure, Sir, that you will understand that I am not intending to call in question your ruling. But only a few days ago I called your attention. Sir, to the fact that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had, in a speech in this House, declared that the forged letter in The Times was a vindictive and a barefaced forgery. I called your attention to the fact that since that declaration hon. Members of this House had declared that the letter was Mr. Parnell's letter. Upon that occasion you ruled that I was not entitled to raise the question as a matter of Privilege.
  MR. SPEAKER: The matter is one of very great importance, and I feel bound again to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The distinction between the two cases is this. I laid it down the other day as a case of presumptive Privilege, that an attack had been made upon an hon. Member for his conduct in this House. The article, as far as I gathered from the words read by the hon. Baronet, went to this effect—that a statement made by an hon. Member in his place in this House was false. I do not wish to repeat the expressions that were used; but it was that charge which constituted the whole gravamen, and it was that which, in my opinion, constituted a question of Privilege, which I do not think it my duty to forbid being brought under the notice of the House. Whether it is a Breach of Privilege it is for the House to decide and not for me.
  MR. SEXTON: I did not intend to refer to the matter in any critical spirit as to the ruling of the Chair; but I wished to point out that on other occasions similar questions have arisen that we have more than once—indeed, on many occasions—endeavoured in this House to call the attention of The Times and other calumniators as a Breach of Privilege; but up to the present moment we have not succeeded in doing so.
  718
  Therefore I am thankful and glad that the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim has made the Motion he has made to-day, and I address the House as a supporter of that Motion. I join my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo in resisting the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury which, Sir, I declare to be from the moment it was made discreditable to the Government, and the adoption of which will be dishonourable to the House. I heard with infinite surprise the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney.) He said that the language of the article had not been distinctly heard; but who wants distinctly to hear it? Does it contain anything new? Have we not been exposed to these charges for months and years? Does anyone doubt the nature of them? Hon. Members may not have heard the exact words read by the hon. Baronet, or by the Clerk at the Table; but does not everyone in the House know that the hon. Member for East Mayo has been accused by this infamous print—The Times—of having stated in this House what he know to be a deliberate falsehood. If that statement is not a Breach of the Privileges of this House, I do not know what can be. Does anyone need to go beyond the title of the article "Parnellism and Crime?" The article asserts that there is a direct association between a body of the Members of this House and breakers of the Criminal Law of the country. The very title of the article constitutes a Breach of Privilege. What plea is raised for delay? The allegations against the hon. Member for East Mayo are definite, numerous, and specific, and my hon. Friend is ready to make his reply. Why should the reply of my hon. Friend be judged to be necessarily antecedent to the declaration of the House upon the question of Privilege? Do you think you will entrap my hon. Friend into an elaborate defence of himself until you take the publisher of The Times by the throat and bring him to the Bar of this House. I speak in your presence, Sir, and subject to your correction; but I speak with great confidence, and I say that the question of Privilege is not concerned with the sufficiency of the reply to be made to this attack. The essence of Privilege lies in the nature

  719
  of the charge, without reference to the reply. You have no right either to call on my hon. Friend to make his reply or to ask for delay in reference to his reply because, by the mere fact of your allowing this Motion to be made, you have given an indication of your opinion. Judging from former precedents set by yourself and other Speakers, you would not have allowed the Motion to be made unless you conceived that a question of Privilege had arisen. The House has to that extent obtained your direction. Now, the simple question raised by the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim is attempted to be evaded by the Queen's First Minister in this House, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of Commons, the chief custodian of the collective honour of this Chamber, by a Gentleman who is not ashamed to allow his secretary to write letters to Primrose Leagues.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House is the adjournment of the debate, and the hon. Member is now introducing irrelevant and extraneous matter.
  MR. SEXTON: I maintain that it would have been far more decent on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if he had abstained from intervening in the debate an obstructive and evasive Motion. I contend, Sir, that the Breach of Privilege is complete, and I challenge any hon. Member, or any hon. and learned Member, to say, especially in view of your recent ruling, that any newspaper is entitled to say of a Member of this House that he has been guilty of wilful and deliberate falsehood. My hon. Friend has replied to The Times, and we are ready to reply to The Times. The House will know what to think of this game of moral assassination which is now being played in this country, when I toll hon. Members that for two days I have been waiting under a subpoena to be called in a criminal case, but the parties went to a jury without daring to call me. I wish they had called me, and placed me upon the table, because I think that if that had been done even the hon. Baronet would not have had the hardihood to make the Motion he has made to-day. We have in various ways endeavoured to bring our opponents and calumniators to book.
  720
  We have hitherto failed to do so in this House, and we have good reason for believing that there is no effectual justice to be obtained outside the House. Now, Sir, a Member of this House, who is a supporter of the Government, has thrown down the challenge—we have heard a good deal lately about challenges that have been thrown down and have not been taken up—and now, Sir, we take up his challenge. What will the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) do? What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) do? What will be done in this Motion by this Party in the House of Commons, who have in various ingenious and indirect forms of language, in an attempt to fasten this fault upon us, challenged us to take up the gage? Will they assist us to take up the gage which has been thrown down? The Government have a majority here. They can carry the Motion that this article of The Times is a Breach of Privilege. If they carry that Motion, the further result of which the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) seems to think would be indefinite and uncertain, the printer and publisher of The Times would be called upon to appear at the Bar and make a statement to the House, and if he refused to make it, or if that statement were unsatisfactory, this House would be bound in defence of its Member to order an inquiry into the matter. That, Sir, is the step we desire. Will the gentlemen of England—at least, those who have a spark of manhood or chivalry in them—assembled in this House, determine now whether any longer a Party of Irishmen, who have laboured painfully and arduously for many years for the advancement of the liberties of their countrymen, are to sit here isolated at the mercy of every ruffian who calls himself the editor of a newspaper. We ask you as gentlemen, as public men, as men united by the common tie of humanity, to let a Committee of this House be formed; let any Committee be formed which fairly represents the Parties in this House; let it be a Committee on which the Government have a majority; but, at any rate, let a Committee of this House be formed where we shall not be defeated by the jugglery of a Sheriff or the criminality of jurors, and then let The Times

  721
  or any other newspaper bring along its battalions of forgers and of liars. We should soon bring this miserable jugglery to an end, and expose the wretched extremity of a Party which, finding that it can no longer, on a basis of fair play, maintain itself before the people, has resorted to the devices of the garotter and the Thug. Only give us a tribunal of this House, and humble as we are—helpless as we are here—and powerful as are our opponents—unscrupulous as they are, we shall prove, Sir, that for no greater crime than that we have stood up as honest men. and as men who claim to have some courage in defence of the political rights and liberties of our people, we have been pursued by a system of moral assassination, the most shameful, and the most unscrupulous the world has ever known.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I sympathize with the desire which has been expressed by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), who has just sat down, to meet this charge without further delay, making allowance for the natural warmth which has been displayed. I altogether fail to see what they have to complain of. The hon. Member for West Belfast says that it does not matter in the least what this article contains, and that the name itself —"Parnellism and Crime"—is sufficient to constitute a reason for prosecuting this debate without any adjournment. But I must remind the hon. Member that this is not the first article that has appeared, and which has been described as "Parnellism and Crime." These articles have been published now for many days; and during that time hon. Members opposite have thought it unnecessary to take any notice of them. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] At any rate, no action has been taken upon them, and I confess I do not understand why it is so absolutely necessary to proceed with this debate now, without an adjournment for a single day. Now, Sir, we are asked to decide whether certain statements in The Times newspaper constitute a Breach of the Privileges of this House; and it seems to me that in so grave and serious a matter as that it is only reasonable and right that the House of Commons should arrive at a calm, judicial, and deliberate action. If we are to come to such a decision in this case, it is absolutely necessary that we
  722
  should all have a complete understanding and knowledge of the statements complained of. I happen to be in the same position as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. [An hon. MEMBER: Oh, dear no!] Perhaps I may be allowed to state my view without interruption on a matter which I regard as most serious. I am in the same position as the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney), and of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), both of whom appear to have had no Notice that it was intended to bring the question before the House. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford says that he had never seen this article.
  MR. T. M. HEALYI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said that I had never read it.
  MR. CHAPLINSpeaking for myself, and I believe for many other hon. Members of this House, I may say that I, for one, have had no sufficient opportunity of studying these articles, and I have no adequate knowledge of what they contain. I was unable to hear what it was that was read by the Chief Clerk at the Table. That being so, how is it possible for the House to arrive at a conclusion upon this subject when the majority of hon. Members at this moment do not know what the articles contain? Under these circumstances, I think, Sir, that it is absolutely necessary that the debate should be adjourned.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I, Sir, intend to vote against the adjournment of this debate, and I desire respectfully to submit to the House my reasons for that vote. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Chaplin) has asked what disadvantage it can be to hon. Members on this side of the House to have an adjournment? Well, I will tell him, speaking only for the Radical Members, and not for the Irish Members, for none of whom I have any right to speak, the objection urged to the adjournment is that outside this House these matters are repeated at nearly every meeting as reasons for carrying a Bill now before the House, which I regard as one of monstrous stringency, and I do not desire in any way to co-operate with anyone in securing such delay as will aid in the circulation of unfair charges. What is the question we are

  723
  asked to discuss? The question is, Is the statement submitted by the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) a Breach of Privilege? And if his translation of that statement is correct, no more distinct Breach of Privilege could be submitted. His translation, and I took down his words carefully, was that the article in The Times charged the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) with wilful and deliberate falsehood in a statement which he had made to this House. If that be not a Breach of Privilege, nothing can be. I understood the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) to suggest that there was a discrepancy between the language read by the hon. Baronet and the interpretation he placed upon it; but knowing the legal acute-ness of the hon. Baronet, and knowing that in a grave matter of this kind he must have carefully considered every word, I feel sure that the hon. Baronet, when he made himself the guardian of somebody else's honour, as well as constituting himself for to-day the guardian of the honour of this House, took pains not to give one shade of interpretation to the statement graver than it deserved. But the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) is that this House ought to be very careful how it gets into a quarrel with the Press.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHUECHILLI said nothing of the kind.
  MR. BRADLAUGHI am always unlucky in understanding the noble Lord. We sometimes seem to attach different meanings to the same words. I understood the noble Lord to say that, at any rate, whatever might be the judgment of the House as to this particular article, the one reason why the House should not deal with it was that it only had the power of imprisonment. I have not had the long experience in Parliament which the noble Lord has had, but I have had occasion more than once to examine the Records of the House, and I can refer him from memory to cases in which the House has done more than put into prison those whom it has declared to have been guilty of a Breach of Privilege. That, however, is entirely an outside question, and I only deal with it in order to remind the noble Lord that his memory is not always accurate upon matters of this kind.
  724
  What attack upon a Member is to be regarded as a Breach of Privilege if an attack like this is not? What is the excuse for the adjournment of the debate? The truth of the question is another matter, to be dealt with in another way and at another time. There can be no excuse for saying that this debate has been raised from this side of the House for the obstruction of any measure that is before the House; but it has been raised by a favoured supporter of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). I cannot imagine that he would have been so disloyal to the Party to which he belongs as to raise it without some consultation with, or communication to, the chief of that Party whom he is anxious to serve. The question having been raised, I venture to appeal to every English Radical—and I have no right to appeal to any others—to give us their votes against the adjournment, as a declaration to the world outside, that they will be no parties to putting into the hands of speakers at Conservative meetings weapons which, even if real, ought not to be used in order to expedite a Bill which is directed against the liberties of a nation, and which will be used for no other purpose.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not desire to criticize the course which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has taken in suggesting the adjournment of this debate. Certainly, the ground upon which he based that suggestion was that he thought that the hon. Member for East Mayo might require time to consider the matter. But that evidently is not the case. The hon. Member for East Mayo and his Friends have demanded that this matter should be considered and determined at once. Well, Sir, in the time that I have sat in this House I have heard a good many cases of Breach of Privilege brought before the House, but, generally speaking, the House of Commons has very wisely decided not to encourage Motions of that kind. It is perfectly plain that Motions of that kind might be multiplied to any extent. There are hundreds of papers in this country which write almost every day things which almost everyone of us, if he chose, might treat as a Breach of Privilege. I may say that I, myself, when I read them very frequently, find

  725
  myself libelled, and if I chose I might treat it as a Breach of Privilege. But, Sir, there is a peculiarity in this case which I never recollect happening in any other. It has generally been left to the hon. Member himself or his Friends to determine how far he thinks observations of that character worthy of his notice or not. I think that every man who is a wise man takes no notice of that sort of attack, and depends upon his own character for his defence. But we have here—made as a Party Motion —a Motion by an hon. Member who cannot even make the plausible pretext that he does it in defence of the person who is attacked, but who uses the Motion, instead of defending the individual or the House, as a means of personal attack upon another hon. Member. That is an unparalleled situation with regard to a Motion of Privilege. It comes forward and it is presented to the House, though ostensibly as a Motion against The Times, in reality as a Motion in favour of The Times. It is brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) as an accusation against the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). It is using a question of Breach of Privilege, under the shallow pretence of vindicating the hon. Member for East Mayo, and of vindicating the character of the House, for the sake of making what is really and substantially an attack upon the honour of the hon. Member for East Mayo across the Table of this House. Everybody knows that this is the real character of the transaction. It is a charge of falsehood advanced by the hon. Member for North Antrim, under cover of The Times newspaper, against another hon. Member of this House. It is so brought forward as stated in the letter which the hon. Member for East Mayo has read. The hon. Member for North Antrim says—
  "The Times newspaper says that you have deliberately stated in the House of Commons that which is false; T advance that authority, and call upon you to meet it."
  [Cries of "No, no!"] I think that it will appeal to the candid judgment both of this House and of people outside the House whether that is the true character of the transaction. Therefore, Sir, we are in the presence of something different altogether from a question of Breach of Privilege. It is a charge—a
  726
  scarcely veiled charge of falsehood advanced by one Member of the House against another, and the Member against whom the charge is brought—on behalf of himself and his friends—demands instant redress. I cannot understand how the House can hesitate for a moment with regard to this demand. If they had said that this charge required time to meet it, everybody in this House would have granted the delay. But they do not demand that delay; they demand that the House shall, in some form or another, give redress, either against The Times, which has been used as a stalking horse in this case, or against the hon. Member who has used that stalking horse in this House. One consequence of the course that has been taken will be that when any hon. Member of this House has a hostile feeling against another, he will read every paragraph concerning him in any newspaper, and call upon you, Sir, to deal with it as a question of Privilege. It will be the institution of a new form of obstruction; the time of the House will be taken up every night by having to consider comments in every London or Provincial newspaper upon the conduct of some hon. Member, and whether they constitute a Breach of Privilege. This matter is brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim, one of the principal Irish supporters of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and we must deal with it as it arises. We all know the manner in which Irish Members have been treated upon this question—how they have been taunted with their unwillingness to meet these charges. These charges have been publicly advanced on the responsibility of a Member of this House, and then when they ask to be allowed to meet them they are refused a decision of the House upon the question. Do you doubt that, according to Parliamentary precedent, to say that a Member of this House has either deliberately stated that which is untrue, or recklessly forbore to know whether it was untrue or not, I do not care what form the charge may take—does anyone doubt that, according to the strict form of Parliamentary precedent, that is a Breach of Privilege? That being so, and considering the circumstances, I quite admit the difficulty in which Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite are

  727
  placed; but that is due to their own supporters. The House has nothing to do with that. The position we have got to deal with is this. We have a charge of great gravity and great magnitude advanced in this House, and we have a demand made by the Gentlemen implicated in it that instant measures should be taken to meet those charges. I do not see how we can refuse that demand. Therefore, I do not complain of the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury originally suggested the adjournment; but as it is quite plain that the ground on which he was induced to make it has not been borne out by the attitude and language of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I hope that, in the circumstances, he will not press this Motion, but will allow the House to come to a decision.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Mr. Speaker, I have no wish at all to find fault with the observations of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), except upon one point, to which I shall refer in a moment; but there were two statements made below the Gangway opposite which I must be allowed to deal with, and to deal with in the most emphatic manner. One hon. Member said that this Motion has been made with the connivance of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), or some other Member of Her Majesty's Government. Another hon. Member in the same quarter said that this Motion would not have been made without consultation with Her Majesty's Government. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury stated distinctly, not half an hour ago, that until he came down to this House he had no notice of it, and he also stated that until then he had no idea that it was going to be made. I think that, under those circumstances, it is going a little too far to suggest that the Motion was made with the connivance of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury. It is, I think, at all events, probable, that if any intimation had been given that such a Motion was to be made such communication in the ordinary way would have been made to myself. All I can say is that until I came down to the House, and heard the hon. Baronet actually making his statement, I had
  728
  not the slightest idea of it; and I believe I may gay that there was no single Member of the Government who ever connived at, or was consulted upon, this question. I trust that that denial will be sufficiently explicit. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had no intention of doubting the word of my right hon. Friend. If there was a misunderstanding under which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury moved the adjournment, it was one in which I also shared with regard to the wish of the hon. Member for East Mayo. I understood him to say that he had not read The Times article, and that he himself was not unfavourable to some delay. We thought, I dare say wrongly, that the hon. Member for East Mayo was not fully aware of the charges which had been made against him, and that it would suit his convenience to have the matter deferred.
  MR. DILLONAs the hon. and learned Member has not stated what I actually said, I think I ought to repeat what I did say. I said, Sir, that I wanted from you information as to the course of Procedure in matters of this kind. What I had in my mind was this, that the House would decide whether the publisher of The Times would be brought up at the Bar or not, and that I ought to reserve my statement until such time as he was brought to the Bar.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERI thought he had indicated that he had not read the article. Of course, I at once accept his statement, but the point I was coming to is this, and it is one which I wish the House to consider. Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to be under a misapprehension; they appear to think that if the printer or publisher was brought to the Bar that he could enter into a justification of the charges that have appeared in The Times, and could prove the truth of what has been written. But he can do nothing of the kind. If the House decides that it is a Breach of Privilege, it decides it in the absence of the printer. The printer or publisher may then be brought to the Bar. The matter may then be considered, and perhaps punishment inflicted on him; but no statement as to the truth of the charges is permissible from him. Therefore, although I can appreciate the desire of the hon. Mem-

  729
  ber for East Mayo to disprove and meet with emphatic and specific denial the charges that have been made against him, yet I must point out that that cannot be done with the printer at the Bar.
  MR. DILLONWhat I really wanted was information. I was under the impression that there would be a debate upon the question whether the printer should be punished or not, and I wanted to know whether there would be a suitable time to enter at length into the nature of these charges.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERI am speaking now of what the position of the printer would be—the alleged libeller. The hon. Member for East Mayo has spoken of him as a cowardly liar, and I do not wonder at it; because the charges are very grave and serious. It is quite plain that the printer at the Bar would have no opportunity of proving whether the charges that have been made are true. The adjournment of this debate will, at any rate, not alter the position of the House with regard to the question, and if the hon. Member for East Mayo desires at once to make a statement, or later on, I do not suppose that the House would put any obstacles in the way of his so doing. The House must remember that this question of Privilege is an exceedingly difficult one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby says that there is no doubt that this is a case of Privilege. I cannot say so. I cannot give an opinion so rapidly as he, or in so off-handed a way. I do not think that this is by any means a clear ease. I think it is a case that ought to be very carefully considered before the House decides upon it; and I ask the House to remember that it has been over and over again laid down that a question of Privilege is so delicate a matter that it ought never to be approached without deliberation. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo desires to make a statement now, I think he ought to be allowed to do so; but the question whether the printer should be summoned to the Bar ought not, I think, to be decided without extreme deliberation and care, so as to see that no mistake is made. On behalf of the Government, I disclaim the least intention or desire to postpone this question for Party motives, or for the reasons suggested by the hon. and
  730
  learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). Whether we were under a misapprehension or not the Motion for adjournment was made as the best way of dealing with the matter, and the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, as well as those of the right hon. Member for Derby, show that they were under the same impression. The issue before the House being whether the House should determine the matter now or two or three days hence, I think that, subject to the right of the hon. Member for East Mayo to make an explanation now if he desires, the House would act more wisely if it resolved to proceed with calmness and deliberation, and accede to the Motion for the adjournment.
  MR. LOCKWOOD: I should have thought there was only one person who ought to be consulted with regard to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. There appears to have been some uncertainty as to the observations addressed to the House, in the first instance, by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), but that uncertainty has now been removed, and I am surprised that the Motion for adjournment is still persisted in. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has pointed out that the course proposed by the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) would not really give the hon. Member for East Mayo an opportunity for meeting the charges in The Times as he wishes to do; but the Motion has been made by a supporter of the Government—the chosen Friend and ally of the Government —and it was received with favour on the opposite side of the House. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well I did not notice any marks of dissent; but do not suppose that, for a single moment, I am desirous of throwing any doubt on any statement which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Baronet who made the Motion has recently been promoted by his Party, and there is indeed some regret that he was not promoted even to a higher sphere, which might have removed the Government from the unpleasant position in which he has placed them now. No doubt the matter cannot be disposed of to-night; but the hon. Member for East Mayo has the right to

  731
  at once defend himself against the charges brought against him, and, at any rate, advance that defence one stage tonight. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for this Motion was based on a misunderstanding of the observations that were made by the hon. Member for East Mayo; but, notwithstanding that this ground has now been removed, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has attempted to justify it on other grounds. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney), and from the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), that there is a doubt whether there is a question of Privilege involved in this matter at all. [Mr. COURTNEY dissented.] Then I withdraw that remark, as far as it applies to the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I certainly misunderstood the effect of the observation he made. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington certainly expressed a doubt whether this is a question of Privilege or not, and I think it very strange that these doubts should only have arisen after it was found that the hon. Member for East Mayo was anxious to take up the challenge which was thrown down.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERWill my hon. and learned Friend pardon me. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury distinctly said, in reference to the Motion, that it was doubtful as to whether this was a question of Privilege at all.
  MR. LOCKWOODI did not hear the right hon. Gentleman express that doubt. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I trust that hon. Members opposite believe, at any rate, that I am speaking honestly. I say that I certainly did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say so. If I had done so I should not have included him in the observation I made just now. I should have said—and I do not think it would be an unfair observation to make—that the right hon. Gentleman, in moving the adjournment of the debate, was, in fact, asking for time, because he was not quite sure that the action of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim had not placed the Government in an uncomfortable position. As I have said, if I had heard the observation—referred to by my hon. and learned
  732
  Friend—made by the right hon. Gentleman I certainly should not have included him, and I wish to assure him that it was not a wilful act on my part. Perhaps I may be allowed to conclude the few observations I venture to make by appealing to the House whether, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo has said, that, so far as the House is concerned, he begs the House to advance his defence by one step, at least, to-night—I appeal to the House whether, under those circumstances, it is desirable to insist upon the adjournment of the debate? We have heard a great deal lately about challenges having been thrown down. A challenge has been thrown down to-night—a challenge which, I understand, is aimed at the hon. Member for East Mayo. [Sir EDWARD CLARKE: No.] I do not say that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) threw the challenge down. I was not addressing the hon. and learned Solicitor General. I was referring to the cheers with which the Motion of the hon. Baronet was received. I may have been mistaken even in this. At any rate, I will go so far as to say that no one ventured to rise on that side of the House to find fault with the Motion of the hon. Baronet. Under these circumstances, I ask the House to reject the Motion for adjournment, and to give the hon. Member for East Mayo an opportunity of meeting the charges which have been made against him at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will not consent to allow a day or an hour to pass without declaring this matter a Breach of Privilege, and allowing inquiry to be instantly made. We have been told over and over again that we do not court inquiry. Even to-night, as an instance of the looseness of the accusations which have been made against us, I may call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that, although charges have been levelled against us again and again, we have never sought any opportunity of refuting them. Now, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has stated in his speech, he has himself, on more than one occasion, endeavoured to obtain a chance in this House of raising the whole of this subject as a question of Privilege,

  733
  but he has failed. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has endeavoured to limit what the House can do when a man is brought to the Bar of this House charged with a Broach of Privilege. I think that much more can be done than the lion, and learned Gentlemen seems to think. The man accused can be heard in his own defence at the Bar of the House, he can be heard by counsel by the permission of the House; he can bring up every statement, and sustain any charge he has alleged, in his own defence, and elaborately substantiate the whole of his case if he thinks fit, against the person he has accused, and then when he has withdrawn from the Bar, it is competent for the House to go into the whole question. I, therefore, take it that the course which the House is now asked to pursue will give the fullest chance of sifting these charges to the bottom. I was glad to hear one statement made by the Attorney General—namely, that the Government have not connived at this singular proceeding on the part of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis). I was glad, also, to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman declare it as his opinion—and it is my opinion too—that when a hon. Member of this House declares that certain statements which have been made against him are untrue, his disclaimer ought to be believed. The Attorney General said, in the course of his speech, that we cannot consider this subject now, because many Members have not read the particular article in question; and he added, the moment after, that this article is only one of a series of articles, all written with the same purpose, and form part of a combined charge. But if that be so, surely we do not want to read the whole of these two columns of print in order to know that a Breach of Privilege has been committed. We know that in this article an hon. Member of this House is accused of downright falsehood, uttered in his place in this House; and, surely, if there is any Breach of Privilege at all, that is a Breach of Privilege of the most gross and scandalous nature. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) is anxious that there shall be no undue encroachment on the time of the House. There was a season in the career of the noble Lord when he
  734
  was not so anxious about saving the time of House. The noble Lord said that if we admit that this was a question of Privilege, we should be inundated with similar cases in the future. As if this case does not altogether stand by itself; as if, at any former time, the same series of charges have been made, day after day, against Members of this House. I trust that a time may never come in the history of this honourable House when such charges shall again be made, and when the same attempt shall be made by the Government to prevent their being brought to an issue. Now, Sir, I confess that I am not fond of bringing newspaper writers and publishers to the Bar of this House, nor am I fond of appealing to the judgment of the House in defence of my own character, or the personal character of my Friends. If this were merely a personal question, and if it concerned only the men abused and their personal friends, I would say to my Friends, "Let it pass; let us take no notice of it; let us trust to time for the vindication of our character, and to the fair future judgment of this House." For myself, I may say that after a tolerable long and not obscure, not, perhaps, altogether undistinguished career in literature here among you, I find myself charged, day after day, with being the patron and hirer of murderers. Yet, did I stand alone, I should take no action; and if anyone were to ask me if I was guilty of these crimes, I should refuse to give him any manner of answer whatever —I should refuse to reply to the charge knowing that better men than myself have been maligned and slandered. But it is no longer a personal question. These calumnies are being used for a Party purpose to aid the passing of a most odious Bill, and, if possible, to stem the rising tide of English opinion in favour of the legislative independence of Ireland. These are the purposes for which these accusations are made in the newspapers; and the First Lord of the Treasury, who drives, I am told, a roaring trade in this literature of the pest house, does not think it wrong or beneath his dignity to stand up in this House to endeavour, by an evasive Motion, to prevent us from vindicating our characters and our cause at the earliest possible moment. We court inquiry. We not only court inquiry, but we insist upon it. We say

  735
  that this House has no right to allow these charges to be made day after day against a number of its Members, and not to endeavour to interfere, in order that justice may be done. We appeal to any tribunal in this House—to any Committee of English Gentlemen whatever. I say for myself, that I should be willing to go before a Committee composed of Members of this House most bitterly opposed to me in political opinion; believing them to be English Gentlemen, I should submit our case to them cheerfully and fearlessly. Then I say that the Government have no right to press this evasive Motion to-night, and to take away from us the earliest opportunity, even although the Motion proceeds from so strange a source. Let the Government put all small arguments and sophistry aside. We at last have got a chance that an inquiry may be held; and we demand that it shall be held by the House itself. I hope there is no man of honour in this House who will go into the Lobby in support of the Motion for adjournment.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: When the hon. and learned Attorney General got up, he told us that the Motion for adjournment was made by the First Lord of the Treasury under a misunderstanding. That misunderstanding having been cleared up, I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not go on to say that the Motion, having been made under a misunderstanding, would be withdrawn. The Government, however, determined to persist in it. The right hon. Gentleman based his whole argument in favour of adjournment on the statement that the publisher of The Times could not speak at the Bar in his own defence. Surely, that could only be an argument against the original Motion, and not an argument for adjournment, because a discussion carried on day after day will not alter the fact that the publisher of The Times, when called to the Bar, could not speak in his own defence.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERI said that the publisher might not prove the charges.
  MR. LABOUCHEREAs a matter of fact, he might. There have been similar cases before. There happens to be an hon. Member of this House who chanced to be in a similar position—the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reid).
  736
  The hon. Member was once brought up to the Bar, and the Speaker asked the hon. Member what he had to say; and the hon. Member, I believe, had a good deal to say in his defence. Then, in the last Parliament but one, my hon. Friend and Colleague in the representation of Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was called before the Bar two or three times, and he was asked each time, whether he had anything to say; and, with the consent of the House, was permitted to speak. Of course, if the Attorney General means that the publisher of The Times could not appear at the Bar with a whole train of witnesses, that is possible, I cannot contradict him. But are we to understand that the conduct of hon. Members opposite has been all swagger? They have persistently told us, over and over again, that some action ought to be taken by hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House with reference to the accusation of The Times; but when tho3e hon. Members express their readiness to answer the challenge, the Party opposite say—"Oh, no; it cannot be allowed, because the publisher of The Times cannot come here with a large number of witnesses." Where were those witnesses when the case which took place yesterday and to-day was heard in the Royal Courts of Justice? After all his swagger, the defendant in that action could not produce one single witness in support of his charges; and an intelligent English jury have awarded the plaint if £500. Another point of the Attorney General was an objection to the course proposed on this side of the House, that a Division should be taken at once. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that when a Breach of Privilege is alleged in this House, the matter is never decided on the spot. I have here a case proving the contrary. Mr. Mitchell Henry in May, 1881, alleged that a letter written by Mr. Patrick Egan, and published in The Freeman's Journal, was a Breach of Privilege, and then and there the letter was decided to be a Breach of Privilege. The right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplain) and several other hon. Members on the other side of the House say that they do not exactly know what is the character of the article to which attention has been drawn, and that they want time for the purpose of reading it. I will quote

  737
  three lines from the article which constitute by themselves a gross Breach of Privilege. These are the lines which I wish to read—
  ''We have examined an elaborate explanation made by one of the most respected of Mr. Parnell's lieutenants from his place in Parliament, and we have shown that it is a tissue of gross and palpable falsehoods."
  We need not go any further. If that is not a Breach of Privilege, I really cannot conceive what will amount to an offence of that kind. It is very clear why the First Lord of the Treasury, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, and several Unionist Gentlemen have tried to put off the issue that has been raised. It is because they do not know what the case of The Times is; they want to gain time to consult the editor of The Times. If we put it off until Thursday, they will go hot-handed to their ally to ask him whether he will allow his publisher to come to the Bar, and whether he really has a case which will bear investigation in this House. If the editor of The Times answers their question in the affirmative, they will return to this House quite ready to vote for inquiry; but if he replies in the negative they will vote against it, for they cannot afford to run counter to his wishes. We are not the subservient followers of The Times. I do not suppose that anyone of us in this part of the House cares one brass farthing what The Times says. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Nor what Truth says. An hon. MEMBER: Or The Daily News.] Yes; we do care what The Daily News says. But we do not care what The Times says, except, as Mr. Cobden once said, that we are glad when we are opposed by The Times, because that is the first step towards carrying a measure. We all regard the present course as a course of shirk and evasion on the part of the Government, and I am perfectly convinced that the country will regard it in the same light.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISAs I have been repeatedly referred to in the course of the debate, I think, for my own sake, I am entitled to ask the House to listen to me for a few minutes. It ought to be known generally by all younger Members that no Notice of this Motion
  738
  could have been given according to the Rules of the House. If I had not taken the course which I took, but had left the matter over until to-morrow or Thursday, it would have been too late to deal with it as a matter of Privilege. It was absolutely necessary to act to-day or not at all. I wrote first to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who has chosen to put an interpretation on my letter to which I will only say that it is directly opposed to its proper interpretation. I thought I was doing a fair and gentlemanly thing in giving him ample notice of the course which I intended to pursue, and in giving him, if he desired it, the opportunity of mentioning the matter himself. In the next place, there have been a variety of suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) with his usual recklessness—["Order, order!"]—that this Motion was brought forward by me in connivance with the Government.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI never said anything of the kind. I never suggested for a moment, after the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) said that he knew nothing about it, that he did know anything about it. On the contrary, I said particularly that we had no reason to complain of the course which the Government took.
  MR. T. M. HEALYIt was I who said it, and I apologize for it, and withdraw the remark. I had seen the private secretary of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) leave his seat, and sit behind the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Lewis) when he was making his Motion, until he had concluded, and he afterwards returned to his seat behind the First Lord, as if he was prompting him.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISWhat I first did, Sir, was to write to yourself. I took care that the letter should be delivered early in the day; but, by some misfortune in your household, it did not get delivered until you were in the Chair. The next thing I did was to inform the First Lord of the Treasury that I intended to bring on this Motion without consulting anyone. From first to last I acted in the matter as I intended to act, thoroughly independently of any Member of the Government. I know these Motions are always inconvenient to those who sit on the Front Bench; and just because I knew there

  739
  would be an effort and a desire on the part of those in authority not to have this question brought forward, and because I thought it essential to the interests of the country and the dignity of this House and of those who desire to see law and order established in Ireland, I acted, from first to last, with perfect independence, and on my own deliberate judgment I have made this Motion, and those who know my character will not think I am going to run away from it.
  MR. DILLONThe last time the hon. Member made a Motion in this House he did run away from it.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISI have not the slightest intention of screening myself under the Motion for Adjournment. I am quite prepared to let it take its usual and regular and legitimate course, and I shall not flinch for one moment from making the next ordinary consequential Motion. Now, what has happened since? I am delighted to hear the reiterated promises from that side of the House, that if the editor or publisher of The Times is made to stand before that Bar, they are anxious and greedy for an opportunity of proving their defence. I am delighted to hear it. It is the first symptom of any desire on their part to take up the challenge. ["No, no!"] Inasmuch as I made this Motion on my own authority, so far as the House will allow it, I shall pursue it on my own authority, and I shall give my vote against the adjournment, and not flinch for a moment from the position which I have taken up. The hon. Member for East Mayo has departed from his original position, and he is now anxious to have the matter investigated. I shall be no party to stand between him and a full inquiry. I have nothing more to say; but I deny emphatically that when I introduced this matter I made any charge of my own against the hon. Member for East Mayo. Rightly or wrongly, I took the view that it would be disgraceful to this House if these charges of wilful and deliberate untruth and wilful misrepresentation did not meet with condemnation and punishment on one side or the other. Although it may be unpleasant to have such a matter introduced, I believe it was essential that it should be disposed of, and I shall not flinch from following it to its legitimate conclusion.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Lewis) has exercised a wise discretion in stating that if this matter goes to a Division he will vote against the adjournment; but I still hope there need be no Division. I was greatly disappointed when the hon. and learned Attorney General rose and sat down without announcing to the House that, in the circumstances and the development which the question had received since the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Government were prepared to withdraw the Motion. My right hon. Friend near me (Sir William Harcourt), without making any charge against the right hon. Gentleman or the Government, endeavoured to urge that appeal, and I wish, further, to press that appeal on the Government. But if that appeal is made in vain, I must, for one, put in a negative to the Motion for Adjournment. I make no complaint whatever of the conduct of the First Lord of the Treasury. I think many Members shared his impression —although it was an erroneous impression—that the hon. Member for East Mayo had signified his desire, more or less, that further time would not be disagree-able to him, although he made no request upon the subject. But since the right hon. Gentleman spoke that impression has been altogether removed, and the hon. Member for East Mayo and his Friends have protested against the adjournment. The hon. Gentleman has made a protest against the adjournment, and he has been joined in that protest by the Mover of the Motion. The main part of the Attorney General's speech was an argument not against the immediate proceedings, but against the whole proceedings of the House in these matters. He said you will call the individual to the Bar, that individual will have no opportunity of making any adequate defence, and the House itself also will be limited in its methods of procedure. Every word used by the Attorney General on this subject is an argument, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said, on the Main Question, and not on the adjournment. It was an argument against proceeding in the matter at all. It was a speech which ought to be made on Thursday next, if the adjournment is carried, and not on the Motion for Ad-

  741
  journment. The Attorney General did not confine himself to that. I think he read a passage from Sir Erskine May.
  SIR EICHAED WEBSTER: It was from Mr. Disraeli's speech, on Dr. Kenealy's case.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is not an authority on Parliamentary Procedure like that of Sir Erskine May; but I admit that it is entitled to every attention. The time for proceeding with care and deliberation is, when you have developed matter to consider. I am sure the hon. and learned Attorney General will not deny that the general Rule of the House is, when a Motion is made respecting a Broach of Privilege, to proceed with it and decide it at once. If there are doubts in the case as to its being a Breach of Privilege, let us consider what these doubts are, because the First Lord of the Treasury seemed to have a doubt in his own mind on the subject. There can be no doubt at all about this. Even those who may not have read the whole of the article know that we have here an article against a Member of Parliament containing a charge of wilful and deliberate falsehood in the discharge of his duty as a Member for the purpose of deceiving the House. I am never anxious to touch upon a question of Privilege; but if there be such a thing as a Broach of Privilege at all, surely a charge of wilful and deliberate falsehood committed in the performance of Parliamentary duties constitutes a Breach of Privilege. If there are any doubts on the subject, how are we to clear them up between now and Thursday? The question is one which needs only to be stated, and that view is unquestionably supported by the regular course of the House on these occasions, which, subject to a few exceptions, has been to come to an immediate decision, although in cases where it was supposed that an apology was likely to be made, or upon other special grounds, delay has been sometimes granted. The necessity for an inquiry arises only on the subsequent stages. The Attorney General seems to think that the mode of proceeding is necessarily limited to some statement by the printer at the Bar, who would not be a competent person to explain and defend the statements of a leading article. But that is not so. Not only will it be iu his power to make such
  742
  defence as he can, but I am not certain —though I will not enter on the question, for it is not a material point—I am not certain that the House is tied up, if it should think fit in the exercise of its discretion, to afford to such person the assistance of counsel. And that is not all. The hon. and learned Attorney General has overlooked a much more material fact which is distinctly referred to in the statement of Sir Erskine May. Sir Erskine May says—
  "On his appearance at the Bar he is examined and dealt with according as the explanations of his conduct are satisfactory or otherwise, or as the contrition expressed by him for his offence conciliates the displeasure of the House."
  That is not the termination of the proceedings. Sir Erskine May goes on to state—
  "If there he any special circumstances arising out of a complaint of a Breach of Privilege it is usual to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into them, and the House suspends its judgment until their Report has been presented."
  I submit to the Government, with great respect, on that supposition, that the whole contention of the Attorney General as to the unsatisfactory nature of the process disappears. Either in this House, at the Bar of the House, or in a Select Committee, there is, and will be, full power of examining the whole matter. So much for the substance of the proceeding. On the question of delay I have but one word to say. I feel the embarrassment of a case of this kind, which is entirely unusual in character and circumstances. It is the first case which I recollect in which a Motion has been made for taking notice of a Breach of Privilege by a Member who makes the Motion—and this, I think, will not be denied, and I do not wish to make any imputation beyond that—by a Member who makes the Motion in a sense hostile to the person against whom the Breach of Privilege has been committed. There is no doubt about that. the circumstance of the hon. Member for East Mayo and his Friends in this House being placed in a peculiar position gives them a very peculiar right of appeal to this House. Their position would have been one thing, had they taken notice of this Motion; it is another thing when the Motion itself is a challenge to every one of them; because the hon. Member for

  743
  East Mayo, although he is made the subject of the severest charges, is, at the same time, described as one of the most respected of Mr. Parnell's "lieutenants," so that those who sit around him are not allowed to escape. Under these circumstances, an appeal has been made by those who are termed the Irish Party, no doubt with some warmth, and no doubt with the introduction of topics which are not entirely within our immediate purview; such accusations—and systematically the subjects of such accusations—are entitled to speak with warmth, or at any rate, must be excused when they do speak with warmth. I have no such excuse, and I hope I have made my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in a way which can give him no cause to complain. It appears to me that the development of the case since he spoke amply warrants his withdrawal of the Motion, and I trust he will withdraw it. Before this Assembly, as an Assembly of English Gentlemen, on behalf of the parties who are accused of the basest and vilest offence that can be committed by Members of Parliament against the House of Commons, and who call for an immediate trial, I say that it is impossible to resist their appeal.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): Mr. Speaker, of course it is with great diffidence that I venture to address the House on a matter of this kind after the right hon. Gentleman, who has had so long an experience of the conduct and Business of the House; but I do notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's speech, ask the House to consider whether he has not himself stated ample reasons for having an adjournment, in order that the question, the gravity of which he pointed out, may receive some further consideration? There is not the smallest desire on this Bench, or on this side of the House, to refuse hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite the fullest opportunity in the House of meeting the damaging accusations which have been made against them. I do not think there is anyone on this side of the House who has not listened with some sympathy to some of the expressions, at all events, which have been used by Members below the Gangway on that side of the House. This Motion did not proceed from the Government,
  744
  nor was it brought before the House by any supporter of theirs in concert with the Government. The question is, whether the House shall at once proceed to say that it is a Breach of Privilege, or whether the discussion shall take place on Thursday next? If this had been a technical or an unimportant question, the Government would have been glad to get rid of it, instead of resuming it on another night. But it is a question of the greatest possible seriousness. My hon. Friend the Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall (Mr. Courtney) has pointed out that, although it is usual for the House to deal with those matters promptly, yet in this case the House is called upon to deal with it when hon. Members have not an accurate knowledge of what they are dealing with. The Motion for Adjournment was made upon an understanding that it was the desire of the hon. Member for East Mayo. That has since turned out to be erroneous; but is that fact a justification for withdrawing the Motion for Adjournment? The House is dealing with an important question of law, and cannot be governed either by the desire of the hon. Member or the desire of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim. There is one matter which has never been referred to in the course of this discussion. The statement in The Times which has been read, and upon which this Motion is founded, purports to be an answer to something which was stated in the House by the hon. Member for East Mayo. In the House of Commons the hon. Member said a statement which had appeared in The Times was a false statement. The Times repeats the statement, and retorts the charge of falsehood. That is suggested to be a Breach of the Privileges of this House. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought this was a question to be dealt with at once. I think, however, there is very grave doubt, indeed, whether this is a Breach of the Privileges of the House; and it is most important that those who are called upon on the other side of the House to assist the judgment of the House in deciding so grave a question as this should have time to consider, and to prepare themselves to discuss this very important matter. The Rules with regard to Privilege in this House have been much altered and limited as compared with what they

  745
  were formerly, and it is a most serious thing for the House to take upon itself to declare that, whenever a Member denies the truth of a statement in a newspaper, if that paper re-asserts its statement, any Member may bring it before the House as a matter which affects its Privileges. There is another reason which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House for dealing hastily with the matter. It has been pointed out that, according to the ordinary course of proceedings in this matter, the printer of The Times would be brought to the Bar of the House, not to enter into the question whether his statement was true or not—because the House would have already decided that, whether it was true or not, the making of that statement was a Breach of Privilege —but he would be brought to the Bar to receive the sentence for the offence which the House had already adjudged him to have committed. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) spoke of the case where a Member of the late Government was brought to the Bar in consequence of a letter or a pamphlet he had written with regard to the naval administration. I remember the circumstances of that case well; for that was the first time I was within these walls, though I witnessed the scene from another part of the House from that in which I am now. No justification was made on that occasion. The hon. Gentleman—now the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed)—stood at the Bar and apologized humbly to the House for his offence, and then withdrew, in order that the House might pronounce its judgment. But, that being the case, the right hon. Gentleman has made another suggestion as to the further action of the House in this matter. He has suggested that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the matter. That suggestion makes the matter still more serious, and still more deserving of deliberation.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That would be a later stage. I simply road from Sir Erskine May's book.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I know it is a later stage. I can read Sir Erskine May's book as well as the right hon. Gentleman. I had the page before me as he read the passage. His suggestion is in answer to the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the At-
  746
  torney General, who pointed out that the appearance of the printer of The Times at the Bar of the House would be an appearance to receive sentence, and not to contest the facts in question. In answer to that the right hon. Gentleman says—"You can appoint a Committee." ["Hear, hear!" from the Irish Members.] A Committee of the House of Commons to consider this matter would be as inadequate a tribunal in its powers, in its results and action, and in the conduct of its proceedings, as could be possibly appointed to examine a charge of this gravity; and I venture to submit that it would be, in my opinion, a serious error in judgment on the part of the House to look forward to any such discussion on a question with which other tribunals are far more competent to deal than the House of Commons, and which are always open. I wish to point out that those considerations with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt are considerations which show the great gravity of the matter with which the House is dealing now, and which I, therefore, submit make it only reasonable that an adjournment should take place for a day or two, in order that we may recur to that question which must at some time be discussed fully—namely, the question whether, in fact, there has been a Breach of the Privileges of the House.
  MR. WHITBREAD: Sir, I regret very much that I have not heard the whole of this debate; but I have heard a good deal of it, and enough, I think, to justify me in asking leave to address to the House a few sentences—and they shall be very few—on this subject. The gist of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down is this—that if a newspaper attacks an hon. Member of this House, and that hon. Member denies the charges made against him, and says they are false, and if then the newspaper, in a further article, retorts the charge of falsehood, it is in the option of the newspaper to choose the Court, and this House will, prim. facie, believe the word of the newspaper, and disregard the word of its own Member. Now, just consider for a moment how this thing has been brought about. I am quite aware of the danger and inconvenience of bringing these questions of Privilege forward. I do not want

  747
  to see editors of newspapers or their printers called to the Bar of this House; but this is a case which must be judged of in connection with its surrounding circumstances. An ordinary charge of falsehood on the part of a newspaper I think we might very well ignore; but what are the surrounding circumstances of the case? I never remember, I never read, more dreadful accusations, repeated! over and over again, brought into this House more than once, dwelt upon by some of the most respected and honoured Members who sit on these Benches, as if they were accusations which had a basis of truth in them, and which must be met. These are circumstances which render the case a peculiar one, and which justify us in acting upon charges made by a newspaper which we could afford, in other cases, to disregard. But one word more. Consider how this case has been brought forward in point of time. The Times newspaper said that it was in possession of this information, I think, for many months. That information was carefully suppressed until the right time and the right moment to launch it. Then, over and over again, those hon. Members who sit below the Gangway—the Representatives of Ireland—wore challenged to place themselves before an English jury. They have not done so, and the charges were repeated again. And I say, now that you have selected the Court, you were not satisfied with the charges being made, and with reiterating; them on every public platform. You treated them as true, because they were not met before a jury in England; and at last you have brought them into this Court. You have appealed unto Cæsar, and unto Caesar you should go. Have you omitted to do anything—have the opponents of hon. Members from Ireland omitted any single step—which could give those hon. Members something like an extra claim on the honour of this House? You have assumed the truth of the charges; you have not forborne to repeat them, and to point out that they have not been answered. They offer you an opportunity now upon the spot, and without delay. I trust, Sir, that both the Party sitting here and the Party sitting opposite will act in this matter as I believe every single Member of them would do if the case were submitted to him alone.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN): Sir, as my name has been mentioned in the article in The Times which has been the subject of the present discussion, I wish to say that I join heartily and cordially in the challenge which has been thrown down by my hon. Colleagues to the editor and publisher of that paper to come before this tribunal, and make good their charges against us. I am amazed, Sir, to find that any hesitancy whatever is shown on the other side of the House in accepting the challenge that we now make to them. I should have thought that they would have closed immediately with any offer of that kind. All their pretences must be false and fraudulent, if they do not accept readily and heartily the proffer which we make to them to bring this question before a tribunal the honour of which stands beyond impeachment. I say that it is very well to challenge Irish Members to test this question in a Court of Law. There is not a man here who does not know that the findings of a Court of Law are not always what they ought to be—that they are not always consonant with the merits or the truth of the case. We all know that jurors are liable to be influenced by clever statements, by inflammatory addresses, and by false representations; but we are willing to meet these charges before a higher and better tribunal, as I trust it will always be regarded, the tribunal of a Committee of this House itself. Will these charges rest, forsooth, on the high authority of The Times newspaper? And if hon. Gentlemen opposite believe a tithe of these accusations against hon. Members who sit upon these Benches, I ask them should they not be eager to seize the first opportunity of dissociating themselves from the Gentlemen who represent Ireland in this House, and who sit on these Benches? I am astonished to find this appeal urged for delay, and I wonder whether this appeal for delay is not merely an electioneering trick, as I am much inclined to think it is, or whether it arises from a fear to have the accusations tried before so high and impartial a tribunal as I believe a Committee of this House would be. As one of those persons whose names are mixed up in this article in The Times, and who are

  749
  branded to some extent by these accusations, I want to express my readiness to do anything I can to bring these charges to an immediate and a satisfactory trial. And I will only say, in conclusion, that whatever murderers, or assassins, or rebels there may be in Ireland, a very large share of the responsibility rests on The Times newspaper itself. I can toll the House that the favourite maxims and quotations of the assassins and dynamiters are drawn from the articles of The Times, and from certain writings of Mr. James Anthony Froude. I know that when O'Donovan Rossa wishes to make a strong case for his doctrines and opinions, he has recourse to the articles which have appeared in The Times newspaper. I know of my own knowledge that not only incitements to rebellion, but apologies for assassination, have from time to time appeared in The Times, and I will produce them at the proper time, if necessary, before the House of Commons. I will only repeat that I cordially join in the challenge thrown down by my hon. Colleagues, and I claim that these charges shall be brought to as speed' and immediate a trial as they can be before a Committee of this House.
  SIR HENRY TYLER: I hope, Sir, that the Motion for Adjournment will be withdrawn. I believe that Motion was made, in the first instance), inadvertently, in con-sequence of a misapprehension as to a part of the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and I believe that if it had not been for that misapprehension the Motion would never have been made. But as it has been made I think it should now be withdrawn. I do so because those are charges which are not now made for the first time, but which have been made for weeks, and even for months, and which have only now culminated in the article which has been produced to this House. These charges have to be sifted - the matter has somehow to be fought out, and in consequence of the Motion of the hon. Member for North Antrim the opportunity has at length arrived for dealing with them. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have not sought this opportunity, and they have not, as many Members on this side think, been sufficiently active in seeking other opportunities; but, as this opportunity has
  750
  been afforded, I think it ought to be embraced at once, and I see no reason for delaying the matter. It is just as simple as that two and two make four. An hon. Member of this House has been accused over and over again, and especially in the article now before us, of stating falsehood in debate in his place in this House, and of wilfully stating falsehoods. If that be not a Breach of Privilege, I cannot conceive how there can be such a tiling as a Breach of Privilege at all. Therefore, I shall not support the Motion for Adjournment, but shall vote at once for this being held to be a Breach of Privilege.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 174: Majority 39.

  AYES.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Corbett, J.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Baden-Powell, G. S.

  Cross, H. S.

  Baggallay, E.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Baird, J. G. A.

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

  Balfour, rt. hon. A.,J.

  Balfour, G. W.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Barnes, A.

  Dixon, G.

  Barry, A. H. Smith-

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Hartley, G. C. T.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Duncombe, A.

  Bentinck, W. G. C.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Beresford, Lord C. W.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  de la Poor

  Elcho, Lord

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Elton, C. I.

  Bigwood, J.

  Ewart, W.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  B1undell, Colonel H. B. H.

  Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Bond, G. H.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Boord, T. W.

  Finch, G. H.

  Borthwick, Sir A.

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

  Bristowe, T. L.

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

  Finlay, R. B.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Brown, A. H.

  Fitz William, hon. W. J.W.

  Burghley, Lord

  Campbell, J. A.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Chamberlain, R.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Chaplin, right hon. H.

  Eraser, General C. C.

  Charrington, S.

  Fry, L.

  Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

  Cochrane-Baillie, hon C.W. A. N..

  Gedge, S.

  Coddington, W.

  Gibson, J. G.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Godson, A. F.

  Compton, F.

  Goldsworthy, Major-

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  General W. T.

  751

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Mallock, R.

  Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.

  Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R

  Gray, C. W.

  Greenall, Sir G.

  Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

  Greene, E.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Mayne, Admiral E. C.

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Mildmay, P. B.

  Gunter, Colonel E.

  More, E. J.

  Hall, A. W.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Hall, C.

  Morrison, W.

  Halsey, T. P.

  Mowbray, rt. hn. Sir J.E.

  Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Hamilton, right hon.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Lord G. F.

  Noble, W.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Norris, E. S.

  Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Hanbury, E. W.

  Norton, E.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Paget, Sir E. II.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Pearce, W.

  Heath, A. E.

  Pelly, Sir L.

  Heaton, J. H.

  Penton, Captain P. T.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Pitt-Lewis, G.

  Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

  Plunket, rt. hn. P.E.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Powell, F. S.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W

  Puleston, J. H.

  Quitter, W. C.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Ritchie, rt. hn. C.T.

  Hingley, B.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Hoare, S.

  Robinson, B.

  Holland, right hon.

  Ross, A. H.

  Sir H. T.

  Round, J.

  Holloway, G.

  Russell, Sir G.

  Holmes, rt. hon. H.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

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

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Selwyn, Captain C. W.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Smith, right hon. W. H.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  Jennings, L. J.

  Spencer, J. E.

  Johnston, W.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Kelly, J. E.

  Swetenham, E.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Kenrick, W.

  Temple, Sir E.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.

  Theobald, J.

  Thorburn, W.

  Kimber, H.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  King, H. S.

  Townsend, F.

  King - Harman, right

  Verdin, R.

  hon. Colonel E. R.

  Vernon, hon. G. E.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

  Waring, Colonel T.

  Webster, Sir E. E.

  Lafone, A.

  Webster, E. G.

  Laurie, Colonel R. P.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Lea, T.

  White, J. B.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Whitley, E.

  Legh, T. W.

  Wiggin, H.

  Lethbridge, Sir R.

  Wilson, Sir S.

  Lewisham, right hon.

  Wodehouse, E. E.

  Viscount

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Long, W. H.

  Wood, N.

  Low, M.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Wright, H. S.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Wroughton, P.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Yerburgh, It. A.

  Young, C. E. B.

  Maclean, F. W.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  TELLERS.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Malcolm, Col. J. W.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  752

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  James, hon. W. H.

  James, C. H.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  Joicey, J.

  Anderson, C. H.

  Jordan, J.

  Asquith, H. H.

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Kennedy, E. J.

  Barran, J.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Blake, J. A.

  Labouchere, H.

  Blake, T.

  Lalor, E.

  Blane, A.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Leahy, J.

  Bright, W. L.

  Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Cameron, C.

  Lewis, T. P.

  Campbell, H.

  Lockwood, F.

  Carew, J. L.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Chance, P. A.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Channing, F. A.

  MacNeill, J. G. S.

  Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

  M'Cartan, M.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Clancy, J. J.

  M'Carthy, J. H.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  M'Donald, P.

  Cobb, H. P.

  M'Ewan, W.

  Commins, A.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Connolly, L.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Conway, M.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Mappin, Sir F. T.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Marum, E. M.

  Cossham, H.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N.

  Cox, J. E.

  Story-Mason, S.

  Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

  Craig, J.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Craven, J.

  Montagu, S.

  Crawford, W.

  Morgan, O. V.

  Cremer, W. R.

  Morley, rt. hon. J.

  Crossley, E.

  Mundella, right hon. A. J.

  Dillon, J.

  Dodds, J.

  Murphy, W.M.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Newnes, G.

  Esslemont, P.

  Nolan, J.

  Farquharson, Dr. E.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Fenwick, C.

  O'Brien, P.

  Ferguson, E. C. Munro-

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Finucane, J.

  O'Connor, A.

  Flower, C.

  O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

  Flynn, J. C.

  O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

  Foley, P. J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Forster, Sir C.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  Forster, Sir W. B.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

  O'Hea, P.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Gilhooly, J.

  Parker, C. S.

  Gill, H. J.

  Pickard, B.

  Gill, T. P.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Picton, J. A.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Grove, Sir T. F.

  Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

  Haldane, R. B.

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

  Plowden, Sir W. C.

  Powell, W.R. H.

  Harrington, E.

  Power, P. J.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Power, E.

  Hayne, C. Scale-

  Price, T. P.

  Healy, M.

  Priestley, B.

  Healy. T. M.

  Pugh, D.

  Holden, I.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Hooper, J.

  Quinn, T.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Illingworth, A.

  Reid, R. T.

  Jacoby, J. A.

  Roberts, J.

  753

  Roberts, J. B.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Robinson, T.

  Summers, W.

  Rowlands, J.

  Swinburne, Sir J.

  Rowlands, W. B.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Rowntree, J.

  Thomas, A.

  Russell, Sir C.

  Tuite, J.

  Russell, E. R.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Russell, T. W.

  Wallace, R.

  Sexton, T.

  Warmington, C. M.

  Shaw, T.

  Wayman, T.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Whitbread, S.

  Sheehy, D.

  Will, J. S.

  Sheil, E.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Sinclair, W. P.

  Wilson, I.

  Smith, S.

  Winterbotham, A. B.

  Stack, J.

  Woodall, W.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Wright, O.

  Stansfeld, right hon. J.

  TELLERS.

  Stepney - Cowell, Sir A. K.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E

  Stuart, J.

  Morley, A.

  Sullivan, D.

  MR. T. M. HEALY: What day?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Thursday.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be adjourned till Thursday."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. SEXTON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that this matter be set down for to-morrow. I think the Government will be ready to admit, after the Division the House has just taken—considering that the number on one side was 174, and the number on the Government's side 213, and that the House has defeated the immediate discussion of the question by only a very slight majority—that there is a great and substantial body of opinion in favour of immediately proceeding with this matter. I think the Government will admit that, after the small majority the Division has given them, we have a right to demand at their hands that the discussion shall proceed to-morrow. I beg to make a Motion to that effect; and I ask you, Sir, what will be circulated in the Papers to-morrow? Certain passages from The Times article were read by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis). Another extract was read by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). As the article in The Times, from beginning to end, contains foul and libellous charges, and as passages cannot be specified and advantageously separated from each other, I think we have a right to claim at the hands of the House that the whole of the article should be circulated with the Papers tomorrow.
  MR. SPEAKER: The ordinary course of procedure is that I should officially direct that only that portion of the article which was read at the Table of the House should be put upon the Votes. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) heard it read; but a certain portion of the article was read by the Clerk at the Table. It is competent for the hon. Gentleman to move that the whole of the article be printed in the Votes.
  MR. SEXTON: I move, Sir, that the whole of the article be read now, so that it can be printed and circulated to Members.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is on what day the adjourned debate shall take place.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Thursday," and insert the word "To-morrow."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Thursday' stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I fully recognize that right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have to demand that this question should be reconsidered and disposed of by the House as speedily as possible; but I am unable to admit that in the Division just taken the majority for the adjournment was of so minute a character as to require that the question should be taken up instantly. In moving the adjournment of the debate, my object was to give the House an opportunity of weighing and considering the statements put before it. I confess I was also moved by the statement which was put before it, in the first instance, by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon); and I was also influenced by the fact that those who sit on both sides of me are in doubt as to whether a Breach of Privilege has really been committed. In so grave a matter affecting hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, affecting the Privileges of this House, affecting the practice of this House, I think we ought not to act precipitately, or do anything without due and proper consideration. The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) has moved that the matter be considered to-morrow. If I could receive any assurance that the matter would be disposed of tomorrow, and not talked out, there would be a disposition on the part of the Government to accede to the views of

  755
  the hon. Member. Considering the gravity of the question, I hope the House will consent to the adjournment to Thursday, the day to which a Motion of this character would, under ordinary circumstances, be deferred. At the same time, I wish it to be understood that I am not opposing the Motion for Wednesday upon any light ground. I am anxious that a decision should be taken as soon as possible.
  MR. JOHN MOELEY: I should like to remark that the right lion. Gentleman has rather changed his ground. When the right hon. Gentleman moved the adjournment of the debate, we all understood, and it has been repeated in the course of the discussion that his motive—[Mr. W. H. SMITH: One of them.] I did not understand there was more than one motive—namely, to give the hon. Member for East Mayo (Air. Dillon) an opportunity for preparing his answer. I do not want to labour that point, I simply mention it in passing. Now, the right hon. Gentleman says that the Motion that this is a Breach of Privilege may be talked out to-morrow. Why, Sir, right hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown they are not at all shy in using the instrument they possess for closing debate. [Mr. W. H. SMITH dissented.] the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, as if he would reproach me for making an unjust charge. Why, then, did you ask for urgency for Procedure? It was to arm yourselves with a particular instrument, and, as I say, you have on two occasions in the course of the discussion on the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill shown that you are not shy in using it. I cannot understand, when you have taken up so much of the time of the House, and put aside so much of the other Business of the House in order to arm yourselves with this weapon, you now take up a position which implies that five or six hours' debate on this topic will not be sufficient to sift it to the bottom. We have not the least desire —hon. Members below the Gangway have not the least desire—to postpone the discussion, or to prolong it. On the contrary, it was you, to-night, who were for prolonging it. Why, what else has this Division been about? Sir, there is no kind of reason for supposing that if the question comes on to-morrow, it will not be finished to-morrow. I shall certainly
  756
  support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton).
  MR. DILLON: I think I am entitled to make a strong appeal to the Government that they should bring this question to an issue as soon as possible. My position is perfectly clear in the matter. I wish this House to come to a decision on the question whether a Breach of Privilege has been committed or not before I make any statement at all. I wish to know whether the editor of Tim Times is to be brought to the Bar or not? I am anxious the House should order the editor of The Times to appear at the Bar. Sir, I think I am entitled, from the peculiar position in which I have been placed, to make an almost irresistible appeal to the Government not to postpone or delay the decision on this matter. It is monstrous to hold that there can be any difficulty in arriving at a decision on the question. The truth or falsehood of the charges made by The Times is not anything to the point at issue. The question is a simple one, which has been over and over again decided immediately it was raised in this House; and to argue that when, tomorrow, every Member of this House will have delivered to him with the Votes the charges complained of, he cannot, before he comes down to the House; make up his mind whether a Breach of Privilege has been committed or not, is to my mind the grossest absurdity. Therefore, I think an act of the greatest injustice and unfairness to me personally, and to those around me, would be committed if a decision on the question were postponed. To my mind, the discussion to-morrow ought to be concluded within an hour. I intend to contribute no speech to the debate, and I do not thick my Colleagues will speak at any length. The issue is simple, and we shall invite the House to come to a decision as soon as possible. I desire to remind the House that the debate tonight was not on the question whether a Breach of Privilege had been committed, but on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. Had it been on the question of Breach of Privilege, so far as my Friends or myself go, you might have settled it in an hour. This is all I have to say on the question. With all the earnestness I can command, I appeal to the Government, as a matter of fairness, as a duty they owe to the humblest

  757
  Member of this House, that they will allow no delay to intervene, beyond what is necessary consequent upon the Division we have just taken, between now and the settlement of the one question whether a Breach of Privilege has been committed or not. When that question is settled, I shall allow them to fix whatever day they like upon which the editor of The Times shall appear at the Bar. They may suit their own convenience in the matter; and it may be one, two, three, or four days hence I shall be prepared to meet him whenever he comes. The question is whether he is ready to moot us, or whether he is not? I say that any further attempt to postpone the settlement of the question will be treated by us—and I think there is manliness enough still left in England to treat it—as a cowardly and base attempt to avoid the issue on the part of the men who have played a cowardly part in pursuing with horrible slanders men who, you must remember, are not in their own country, men who are not amongst friends, and who are taken at a sore and terrible disadvantage in dealing with a great organ like The Times. I only ask you, Sir, to inform us in what way the question that the whole of the article, and not simply the parts read at the Table, should be circulated in the Votes to-morrow, can be best raised?
  MR. SPEAKER: The best course will be for an hon. Gentleman to move, when the debate is resumed, that the whole of the article be laid on the Table
  MR. DILLON: I beg to point out to you, Sir, that that will deprive hon. Members of the opportunity of reading the whole of the article to-morrow in their Papers, to which I attach great importance.
  MR. SPEAKER: I can only deal with the parts of the article read. I cannot direct to be put upon the Votes anything more than the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) handed to the Clerk to be read.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise at once to respond to the strong appeal which has been made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillon). I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), to distinctly give their assurance
  758
  that the debate on the Main Question, if taken to-morrow, will be settled without delay. My desire is to give the House only sufficient time to form an accurate opinion on the facts of the case. I have no wish whatever to stand between the hon. Gentleman and his wish to obtain the judgment of the House upon the question which has been raised; and therefore, on the distinct understanding which I take it has been conveyed, I will consent to the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow instead of till Thursday. It is hardly necessary for me to refer to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne as to the closure. I am sure he would hardly suggest that I should enforce the closure on a question of Privilege, when the character and reputation of hon. Members below the Gangway are concerned.
  MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the best course would be to say, in reply to the appeal of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), that I will take it upon my own authority to have the whole article referred to by the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Lewis) printed and circulated with the Votes.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Mr. Speaker, it is as well there should be no misunderstanding as to the proceedings to-morrow. We do not understand that we are to come down to-morrow at 12 o'clock, in order that the Government should oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Lewis); we do not understand that the Government mean to come down to the House and ask us to go to a Division at once. What we understand is, that the Government mean to make some proposition to-morrow. We certainly cannot agree to any course like this, that the Government should come down to-morrow and say—"We have scrutinized the article referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim; we cannot see anything in it in the nature of a Breach of Privilege; we oppose the Motion; and we will compel you, in virtue of the pledges you gave last night, to take an instant Division." I will consent to no such course as that. I should like to know exactly what the Government means; because, after all, the pledges of the Members of the Government and of their supporters have to be strictly scrutinized when we know that the hon. Baronet the

  759
  Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) said, in the most distinct manner, he was going to oppose the Motion for Adjournment, and then abstained from voting altogether. I invite the Government to let us know now what they mean. Let us not patch up an arrangement tonight which will result in further misunderstanding to-morrow. I shall be no party whatsoever to coming down here at 12 o'clock to-morrow to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) say that he cannot agree to the Motion, and then to our being compelled to take a Division there and then. I beg to remind the Government that to-night supporters of the Government are to pass a Resolution demanding from us an inquiry into this subject. I see that the following Motion is to be moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), and seconded by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Loughborough Division of Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle)—
  "That in the opinion of this meeting the grave charges of complicity with crime, and of association with those who advocate the use of dynamite and assassination which have been publicly brought against leading Members of the Parnellite Party, and supported by unrefuted evidence, require from that Party and from their Radical allies definite and public disproof."
  That Motion is to be made to-night, at a great meeting to be held in support of the Government in St. James's Hall, with a Member of the Government—Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett—in the Chair. Under these circumstances, to ask us to come down to-morrow—if that be the understanding—and simply hear the decision of the Government, is, to say the least, unreasonable. We ask that this Motion should be gone into fully to-morrow. It is not extraordinary to ask that this matter should be properly and fully gone into, and at once. Seeing that 85 or 86 Members of the House are affected, what does it matter whether an hour or two hours of the time of the House be taken up with a grave question that involves the honour of so large a body of Members of the House, involves almost the question of the passing of the Bill now before the House, and the question, later on, of the legislative independence of our country? I ask the Government, under all these circumstances, to let us know exactly what it is they mean by saying we shall not amplify debate to-
  760
  morrow. If the Government agree to the Motion, I shall not open my mouth to-morrow, and I do not suppose that any of my hon. Friends will; we will sit as silent as statues. I certainly do think we are entitled to have a clear explanation from the Government as to their intentions.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can only speak again with the indulgence of the House. I thought I was distinct, clear, and candid in what I said just now. I said that I and my hon. and learned Friends around me had our doubts as to whether or not these statements constitute a Breach of the Privileges of this House. I made no disguise of what we thought; but no doubt it will be my duty, when I come down to the House to-morrow, to state the distinct opinion of the Government upon that question; and when I invite hon. Gentlemen to come to an early decision on the question, I certainly do not request them to take the opinion of the Government without question or controversy. I am acting in good faith with them, and I believe they are acting in good faith with me; I will, so far as I am able to do so, afford them every facility to obtain it. All we ask is that the House will not continue the discussion after Wednesday.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman says. He does not ask for an undertaking that the proposal of the Government shall not be debated, but that every effort shall be fairly made to close the debate before 6 o'clock, when a Division shall be taken. Of course, one cannot but foresee that if the Government were to oppose the Motion there would be a long debate. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) wished to convey was that, on this side of the House, there is no desire to prolong the debate, if the disposition of the Government is to support the Motion. It is quite plain, because then we should all be in accord. Of course, hon. Members below the Gangway are placed in a very difficult and unfair position. Even their accuser has left the House. [An hon. MEMBER: He did not vote.] After his declaration that he never ran away from a Motion he has now left the House. That is the manner in which these grave accusations against men are

  761
  dealt with; and surely this is a reason in itself why this question should come to instant decision. I think that the House will agree that this discussion should be taken on Wednesday, and not on Thursday.
  MR. ILLINGWOBTH: I think the House will be well advised if it refuses to have its hands tied as to the course of the debate to-morrow. If it be a question of Privilege that is to be raised, surely the House of Commons ought to take its own time within which it will debate the question, and settle it in a manner that will be satisfactory to the majority of the Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) seemed to be horrified at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) that the closure might be used to-morrow; but the right hon. Gentleman is oven anticipating the closure, because he wants to make terms before to-morrow comes, and before the House of Commons knows what the position of the Government upon this question is, that the House will not, under any possible circumstances, carry the discussion of the subject over to-morrow. If the Government like to take up a position which will be satisfactory to the House at large, it is evident the debate cannot occupy any great length of time; but if they shrink from affording hon. Gentlemen from Ireland ample opportunity of discussion, I, for my part, should feel justified, upon the statement of the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), that this is one of the gravest questions which can possibly be raised, in assisting hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in carrying the debate over till Thursday. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) that it would be altogether premature to determine now at what time the debate should close to-morrow.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'Tomorrow' be inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Ordered, That the Debate be adjourned till To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 217.]
  Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. j Attorney General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd May.]
  [THIRD NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PRELIMINARY INQUIRY.
  Clause 1 (Inquiry by order of Attorney General).
  MR. CHANCE: Mr. Courtney, I desire to move to the 1st clause of this Bill an Amendment, which I hope will not be characterized by any Member of the Government as obstructive, or as an unsubstantial one. The Amendment will make a very grave alteration in the Bill—one which certainly ought to be made. I will admit there may possibly be, on the part of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, some iota of a desire to maintain law and order, or what they consider to be law and order; but it seems to me there are many ways in which that should be done. Unfortunately, we differ from some people as to the method of maintaining law and order. Some people think that will most probably be done by allowing noble Lords to travel about disturbing the districts through which they go; and other gentlemen think it may best be done by circulating, for a pecuniary consideration, enormous numbers of the gross and abominable libels which have been referred to in the House to-night. There is another way in the opinion of some people, and that is the exercise of powers such as those created by this clause. Now, I think it is but reasonable that there should be some precaution provided that the tribunal with such extraordinary powers as are given by this clause, which it is proposed to set up over the Irish people, should be constituted of persons who will have some sort of claim to a character for independence and impartiality. What is it that the Government propose to do by this clause? They propose to give to a certain tribunal very largo powers. They propose that this

  763
  tribunal should have power to examine any person it likes; to examine that person secretly; to compel that person to criminate himself or herself; and they propose that this tribunal shall have unlimited power to commit to gaol, for any reason the tribunal thinks fit, any person whom it may choose to call before it, whether that person is a material witness or not. Therefore it is that we ought to scrutinize very carefully the constitution of this tribunal. We find it is to be constituted of one Resident Magistrate. Now, I believe there is before the House, though it has not yet been circulated, a statement showing the previous occupation of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. That statement proves very effectually that the Resident Magistrates are gentlemen who are thoroughly unfit to be trusted with any large judicial powers, or, indeed, with any powers at all. Out of 76 magistrates 58 are half-pay officers, and only 9 lay any claim to legal training. Now, the 6 & 7Will. IV. c. 13, s. 13, shows that the Resident Magistrates of Ireland are perfectly dependent upon the Lord Lieutenant; he appoints them, and has the power to remove them at his will and pleasure. The 10 & 17 Viet. c. 60, s. 2, provides that before one of these gentlemen can secure a superannuation allowance he must obtain a certificate from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that he has served him "with diligence and fidelity." My proposition is to substitute for these individuals a permanent Law Officer of the county—the Crown Solicitor or Sessional Crown Prosecutor acting before the County Court Judge—to assimilate the provision of this section to the Scotch law, of which we have heard so much. I propose to leave out the words from "direct," in page 1, line 8, to "and," in line 9, and to insert—
  "The Crown solicitor or sessional Crown prosecutor of the county in which such crime is alleged to have been committed, to summon and examine witnesses before the county court judge of such county touching the commission of such crime."
  I need hardly point out that under the clause, as it is framed at present, an inquiry will be held before a single Resident Magistrate, at the orders of the Castle; that this gentleman is not only to be prosecutor and examining counsel, but also Judge; that he is to ask questions, and to decide whether the questions
  764
  are proper or not; and that he is to have full power to send to gaol. In Scotland a permanent Judge is at the head of the Court, and protects the witnesses. We hear a great deal of the tyranny of the French law in the matter of preliminary examination; but, according to the French law, a Judge is appointed every three years to hold preliminary inquiries. This Judge retains his character and status as a permanent Judge of the Civil Tribunal, and when his term of office is at an end he goes back to the Civil Tribunal. He is an independent Judge, and not appointed to hold office at the pleasure of somebody else. He protects the witness from being called upon to criminate himself. And what power has this permanent Judge? It may surprise hon. Gentlemen to know that the only power he has is to commit a witness to gaol for 10 days, or to fine him 100 francs. If hon. Gentlemen have the slightest desire that this Act shall be administered fairly, or shall, in the slightest degree, have any right to command the confidence of the people of Ireland, I imagine they ought to accede to my Amendment. I appeal even to the most rabid Tory to recollect that no good can possibly be served by setting up such an infamous tribunal as that proposed. the people will decline to appear before such a tribunal; they will dare it, and they will be right. If the object of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench is to detect crime and outrage, that object will be best attained by establishing a tribunal which will have some semblance at least of independence and impartiality. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word "direct" to the word "and," in line 9, in order to insert the words "the Crown solicitor or sessional Crown prosecutor of the county in which such crime is alleged to have been committed, to summon and examine witnesses before the county court judge of such county touching the commission of such. crime."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'a' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The proposition that there shall be an inquiry has been confirmed by the Committee in more than one Division, and the question we have now

  765
  to decide is what tribunal is to carry on the examination. Let me say, in the first instance, that I do not profess to understand the law of Scotland, and that I have not road, and do not care to read, anything about the French law. I prefer to take the analogy of the English law, and preliminary inquiry is a thing very well known to English law. It has existed in England for a considerable period, and there are in this country certain officers who are entrusted with the duty of holding preliminary inquiries. Who are those officers? They are the magistrates. [Mr. CHANCE: With the prisoner charged.] The person who is employed to take depositions as an initial step to a criminal prosecution is the magistrate. It seems to me a most reasonable thing that this duty should be entrusted to the magistrates. In the observations he has made, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chance) has referred to the judicial duties of magistrates. The taking of depositions is not regarded as a judicial duty at all. It has been laid down again and again by the Supreme Courts that that is a magisterial duty as distinguished from a judicial duty. the taking of depositions is one of the ordinary functions of a Justice of the Peace. It is constantly performed by every Justice of the Peace both in England and in Ireland. The duty is far more important than the duty a magistrate is called upon to perform under this Bill, because the depositions now taken may be used in evidence against the prisoner, and, further, they may be used against the very person who is giving evidence. the House having confirmed the proposition that we are to have in certain parts of Ireland the taking of evidence before a person is charged, why not leave the inquiry to the same class of functionaries who have at present the right to take depositions? This section is not being enacted for the first time. It has been enacted on various occasions. In 1870 it was enacted, and then this power was given to any ordinary Justice of the Peace. In 1882 it was enacted, and then power was given, in the very terms we have incorporated in the present clause, to the Resident Magistrates. It was enacted again as part of the permanent law of England in reference to a particular class of crimes, and power was given to any ordinary Justice of the Peace. The
  766
  hon. Member has said that Resident Magistrates in Ireland are not persons who can be expected to administer this clause in a proper and fair way. Every day Resident Magistrates are performing far more important duties than that proposed to be cast upon them. They are taking depositions which can be used as evidence not merely against the prisoner, but also against the person who makes them. We are not extending in any way the functions of Resident 'Magistrates; and it must be borne in mind that all the present Resident Magistrates have not been selected by a Tory Government at all, but that a large number of them were appointed by the Government of Earl Spencer. Well, now, everyone knows that some of the best magistrates to be found have really had no previous training in the law. As a matter of fact, if you go through the Magistracy of England you find that the greater number of them are men who have made themselves acquainted with magisterial duty by study. That being so, the hon. Gentleman makes the totally novel proposition—a proposition for which no analogy can be found in the Common Law of any country—that the witnesses should be taken before County Court Judges. Now, as a matter of fact, I venture to say that out of all the County Court Judges in Ireland probably there are not five who have ever taken a deposition. It forms no part of their duty now; it never did; and to ask them to enter upon a duty they have never performed while Resident Magistrates would seem to be most unreasonable. Besides, County Court Judges sit at specified periods; they have four Sessions a-year, each of which lasts for a little more than a month. Is it suggested that they should increase the number of their Sessions'? Now, the hon. Member began by saying that he hoped no Member of the Government would suggest that this was an obstructive Amendment. I do not mean to make such a suggestion; but I will take the opportunity of calling hon. Members' attention to this—that although we have had legislation on this subject again and again—we had it in 1870, in 1882, and again in 1883—I am not aware that on any one of those occasions was a proposition of this kind over made or suggested. Therefore, this is a very novel proposition, and it certainly

  767
  does not commend itself to my judgment. In conclusion, I will merely say that as the clause stands there are three protections in regard to the initiation of this preliminary inquiry. First of all, there is to be sworn information; then the Attorney General may or may not act upon this information; and, thirdly, the Resident Magistrate may or may not hold the inquiry.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland spoke for the purpose of consuming time, he might, seeing that there are scarcely any Members of his own Party in the House, and that he was practically speaking to us, have used arguments relative to what we have addressed to him. The Attorney General for Ireland knows very well that he did not touch upon a single point in the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance). The right hon. and learned Gentleman began by saying that Resident Magistrates and magistrates generally have always been accustomed to take depositions. So they have; but under what considerations? When a person is charged, and when witnesses come up voluntarily and in open Court to make the depositions. We complain that some Cavalry man, or some, gentleman connected with the Navy or the Militia or Horse Marines, should have power to take up anybody he pleases, and subject him to an inquisition in his own private room, as was done in one case in Dublin. To tell us that Resident Magistrates have always been acting in the way proposed by this Bill is to tell us a thing that is not. It is absurd for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to use an argument of that kind. Again, he said he knew nothing about Scotch law, and did not want to know anything about French law. I think it would be a little better —anyhow, he would be none the worse—if he did know something about French and Scotch law. It would be no burden to him. He is not so overburdened with a knowledge of the British law that he cannot stand a little further enlightenment. He says he does not know anything at all of French law. What was the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance)? The point was, that in a country where serious crimes have proceeded at a most extraordinary and an abominable rate, the most you can
  768
  do to a person who refuses to answer your questions is to imprison him for 10 days, or to fine him 100 francs. It is proposed in this Bill to give the power to keep such a man in gaol for ever. In France the Judge who presides at the preliminary inquiries is appointed for three years, while in Ireland the Resident Magistrates, who are recruited mainly from the Cavalry, the Artillery, the Militia, or the Marines, are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and may be dismissed at a moment's notice. Then, again, my hon. Friend pointed out what happens in Scotland; but the Attorney General for Ireland disposes of the subject by saying he knows nothing about Scotch law. Then he tells us that these provisions were proposed before, and no objection was taken. They were proposed at a time when the great majority of the Irish people were disfranchised, when we had not had the experience of Mr. Curran and Mr. George Bolton, when witnesses were not dragged up and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) in his place. He was sent to gaol for a fortnight under a clause like this. Why? Because he would not answer irrelevant questions. This is a very nice power to put into the hands of half-pay Cavalrymen and Militiamen. Another argument used by the Attorney General was that County Court Judges in Ireland only sit six months in the year. If I were to bring forward a Motion to reduce the salaries of these gentlemen, on the ground that they only sit six months a-year, I should be told they sit all the year round. The Motion does not mean that the County Court Judge is to sit at Sessions. The Judge can by order take these depositions within his county at any time, whether in or out of Session; and all that we desire is that gentlemen learned in the law should at least be provided to take part in this inquiry. My hon. Friend said that some of them are barristers. Well, no doubt that is so; but what sort of barristers? Take the case of the one most recently appointed. I will ask the Committee to judge of the sufficiency of the legal knowledge of this gentleman by the amount of salary he is receiving. The Solicitor General for Ireland appointed him for making Primrose League speeches during the General

  769
  Election. This gentleman went over to Ireland as a Liberal Unionist. He had formerly been a Sub-Commissioner appointed under the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and, like many of the crawling barristers of the Irish Bar, when he has got all he can get from a person, the moment the right hon. Gentleman went out of power, like a miserable cur, went and bit the hand that had fed him. So this gentleman, having no legal business, went over during the General Election and made speeches for the evening, and so successful was he in his undertaking that he was appointed by the present Administration as a Resident Magistrate; and what does the Committee think is the magnificent salary that this gentleman with a sufficiency of legal knowledge receives—why £450 per annum. These are the kind of men, these wastrels of the Legal Profession whom you get as magistrates when you depart from your usual practice of appointing Militiamen and ex-Army captains. For my own part, I would rather be tried by a military man, even a Militiaman, than by one of the wastrels of the Irish Bar appointed by the Government for doing Liberal Unionist work at the General Election. The County Court Judges receive something like £1,200 a-year, and have a fair amount of legal training; and I submit that it would be infinitely preferable to make these gentlemen the authority under this clause. But that reasonable demand is met by a disdainful negative by the Attorney General for Ireland. Of course, the Government did not deal at all with one argument of my hon. Friend, an argument I myself addressed to the Chief Secretary in the form of a Question in this House. I refer to the point of the tenure of office of these Resident Magistrates. This Return which my hon. Friend has read to the House is most amusing, for it gives you almost the pedigrees of these gentlemen like those of racehorses, and here you have every one of them marked "tenure of office—pleasure." So, therefore, this law is to be made permanent in our country; and whereas the great principle ever since the English Revolution has been that men of this kind are not to be appointed by pleasure, you get a class of men to whom you pay £420 a-year
  770
  in Ireland, and hold them in their office subject to your pleasure. No doubt, you will be able to get men to carry out the provisions of this Bill, men without much professional character, for £420 a-year, men who, for them, are in a state of starvation; but you cannot get decent men to do work of this kind. It is dirty work, or may be made dirty work by gentlemen who may stoop to all sorts of discreditable devices to please. We say that if these inquiries are to be conducted at all, they should not be conducted by gentlemen who will stoop to discreditable devices. Seeing that the entire principle of the English Judiciary is that it should be permanent, it is too bad that you should hold over these Stipendary Magistrates the alternative of being sent about their business if they refuse to do your dirty work. It is too bad that these distinguished gentlemen should have before them the prospect of dismissal—the fear of being sent back to the Four Courts when their practice, if they ever had any, is at an end, and that you send back those half-pay cavalry gentlemen who no longer find employment in the Army to seek other occupation. We protest against these gentlemen having held over them the alternative of dismissal or carrying into effect what we maintain are the tremendous penalties of this measure. The fear of this discussion is that we Irish Members are told that we are wanted here, that our presence here is needful to secure the happiness of England and Ireland; we are told that all we have to do is to stay here and argue in a proper manner, and that we shall be listened to. We are told that our arguments will always be listened to with intense pleasure and intense interest, and that if we only put them reasonably and state them with moderation—and moderation is a quality which, for my part, I always condemn and never indulge in—our arguments will not only be listened to, but will be carried into practical effect. These hypocritical pretences ought to be dropped. Why do you not frankly refuse our requests, and say to us—"We won't argue with you; we are going to pass this Bill on the sic volo sic jubeo principle." I should infinitely prefer that method on the part of the Government to speeches such as that we have just heard from the right hon.

  771
  and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whose arguments are really a negation and debauchery of debate.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. MOLLOY: The answer given by the Attorney General for Ireland on the Amendment of my hon. Friend, if it prove nothing else, certainly proves the versatility of the right hon. and learned Attorney General's powers of argumentation. It was only last night that the right hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to the Scotch law to support the introduction of this clause into this Bill—in order to induce the Committee to assent to the clause as it then stood—but, Sir, when dealing with the question of the Scotch law to-night upon the point where the Scotch law was absolutely against the arguments of the Government, the right hon. and learned Gentleman took up the extraordinary ground of saying that he himself knew nothing whatever about the Scotch law. As I say, it was only last night that he was arguing upon another Amendment that what was proposed in the clause existed in Scotland. He was not even correct in his facts last night, because under the Scotch law the person who has the power of inquiry is a judicial person—it is a person of judicial training, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed altogether to see that our objection to the clause as it now stands, is that these enormous powers are to be put into the hands of persons totally unqualified to exercise them. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to give us a learned dessertation on the powers of the magistrates at the present time, both in Ireland and in England; and, if there was anything in his argument, it amounted to this, and this only, that the powers proposed to be given to the Resident Magistrates in Ireland under these clauses, are powers that they have at the present moment. That is an extraordinary argument for a Gentleman in the position of the Attorney General for Ireland to use, when it is proposed to confer these new and extraordinary powers upon these gentlemen. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed altogether to
  772
  grasp the object and meaning of this Amendment, and I hope that presently the Solicitor General for Ireland, who is in his place, will get up and make some show of argument, at any rate, in opposition to our proposal. Here are powers of a most extraordinary nature being conferred upon Resident Magistrates in Ireland, and the Amendment that we propose is an Amendment that I should have thought the Government would have been most ready to assent to. It is not an Amendment which will limit their powers in any sense, but it is an Amendment for securing that those powers shall be exercised, as the Government are never tired of telling us they will be exercised, in a judicial and fair spirit. We do not believe either in the judicial power or the fair spirit of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. Of course, we object to these powers altogether, and, for the matter of that, to the whole Bill; but what we want to see in this clause is, that when granting these powers, we should take precautions to see that they shall be exercised with some fairness and some show of justice. The Crown Solicitor and Sessional Crown Prosecutor in Ireland, the functionaries named in this Amendment, are men of legal training. They may be good, bad, or indifferent; but, at any rate they are men of legal training, and are able to understand the bearings of a legal case, and to conduct the case; but the Resident Magistrates of Ireland are as unable and unfit to conduct such inquiries as either you or I, Sir, would be to conduct the operations of a balloon. I beg your pardon, Mr. Courtney, perhaps you might be able to manage a balloon; but I am quite sure that I should not. Who are these Resident Magistrates? we have heard a list of them read out to-night. They are half-pay colonels, quarter-pay captains, and no-pay lieutenants of the Army. What sort of men are they? I will mention one case which has come under my own observations, and, for obvious reasons, I will not mention the gentleman's name. I will tell the Committee what I know about one of those gentlemen to whom the Government are about to entrust the enormous powers of this clause. I was asked to give the gentleman a recommendation, and I told him that if I did he would not get the appointment. He arrived in this country after military

  773
  service abroad. He was noted in the service as one of the best gentlemen riders they had, and was also noted as being the best pigsticker in India. He came back to this country, and with that desire for larger resources that all gentlemen from India seem to have, he applied at once for a position as Resident Magistrate in Ireland. As I say, he came to me and asked me to help him, and I have given the reason why I did not intervene on his behalf. I did not want to injure him. I said to him, you have not the faintest possible chance of obtaining this position, and he replied, "Oh, yes, I have. One of our chaps is already in." This, Sir, is literally true. I have heard it said by officials in this House that no one is appointed to the Resident Magistracy who has not been tested beforehand. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that statement having been made by Governments in this House for the past five or six years. Well, at any rate, this gentleman on returning from India applied for the post of Resident Magistrate, and in three days he got it. I will not say whether he is in that position still or not, because I do not wish to particularize him. Here is a man, a particularly good rider, who had won several races and was in possession of several valuable cups. He was a good pigsticker, but he knew no more about the law than a child. He knew little about his own country, he had gone straight from College into the Army, he had seen a long period of service in India, he came home, and three days afterwards was appointed Resident Magistrate in Ireland. Is it astonishing, Sir, that we have no confidence in such men as these? I am not speaking of this gentleman's honesty or general character, but this Committee is about to put most enormous powers into the hands of these men, and it is childish for the Attorney General for Ireland to say that these powers are now exercised in this country and in Ireland. It is nothing of the kind, and the Attorney General for Ireland knows it perfectly well. The powers that ordinary Justices of the Peace have now are limited powers. The powers in the law as it exists are governed by traditions and practice, and are not in any way to be compared with the enormous powers to be placed in the hands of these men. What are these powers? It is not neces-
  774
  sary that a crime should have been committed; it is not necessary that an offence should have been committed; but if somebody believes that something is wrong—a very general statement—any one of these gentlemen, the pigsticker, for instance, receives a mandate from the Attorney General for Ireland and holds an inquiry. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said—"I have power under this Bill to instruct them to make this inquiry; but the Resident Magistrates are quite an independent body of gentlemen, and they can refuse to make the inquiry if they like." I should like to see my friend the pigsticker refusing to obey the mandate of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, seeing that he is holding his office during pleasure. No, Sir, I imagine that he would hold the inquiry. What would he inquire into? Into crime? No, no crime has been committed. As to some offence? No, for no offence has been committed. He makes a roving inquiry into whatever he chooses. Let us look a little further. An independent magistrate in this country when there has been some unfortunate being evicted from his holding, or when he has his furniture taken away by the Sheriff, does not go down to the scene of the proceedings at the head of 50 or 100 policemen. When there is a riot in the street the independent magistrates of this country do not go round and take part in it; but in Ireland the Stipendiary Magistrates do these things. You may find them commanding a whole army of police, and mixing themselves up with military enterprises against some miserable starving tenant, who is to be evicted. The Stipendiary Magistrate in Ireland is in charge of everything of this kind. He may go out into the street, and perhaps through his indecision, his folly, or his want of patience and consideration when the people are in a state of excitement, makes it infinitely worse than it would otherwise have been. He may go then from the street into his study, which for the nonce is called a Court of Justice, and he may summon before him anyone he likes and may cross-examine them as he chooses. There are several of these gentlemen who have acted as agents of the landlords, and several of them are related to landlords. I should like to know if it is fair to ask these men to hold these inquisitorial inquiries, or

  775
  whether it is fair to give thorn the power to do so, and whether it is fair to give them the power to cross-examine some unfortunate tenant or other or any number of tenants, he himself being interested in the collection of rents in that district? But under this Bill it is to such men as those that you give these powers. I will take an example, the case of a Resident Magistrate in Ireland whom the Government appointed, and whom they were uncommonly glad to get rid of again—a gentleman who was sent out to Egypt, and who was turned out of there, and who was sent elsewhere and has had to be relieved of his duties in every quarter of the world in which he has been placed—I allude to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. I will not appeal to young Members of the House because they will not have, probably, a sufficient acquaintance with the debates which have taken place in recent years to follow me closely upon this point; but I will ask old Members of this House who have followed the course of these debates, and have followed the career of this gentlemen in his judicial wanderings all over the globe—I will ask them whether anyone will say that the powers under this Bill are powers which should be given to such a man as Mr. Clifford Lloyd? Why, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland himself will not get up and say that Mr. Clifford Lloyd is a person to be intrusted with these powers, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman took part in the debates which were held some time ago with regard to this Gentleman's conduct.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): No, no.
  MR. MOLLOY: At any rate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the debates.
  MR. HOLMES: No, I did not.
  MR. MOLLOY: Then I am sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not pay more attention to his duties; because we were constantly discussing this question, and I am unable to imagine—
  MR. HOLMES: I had not the honour of a seat in the House when the debates concerning the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd took place.
  MR. MOLLOY: No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House when Mr. Clifford Lloyd was in Ireland and when the debates im-
  776
  mediately affecting him took place; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that very many references have been made to Mr. Clifford Lloyd in this House quite recently. At any rate, will anyone say that Mr. Clifford Lloyd is a person to whom the inquisitorial powers of these clauses should be intrusted? Will anyone say that Mr. Clifford Lloyd is the sort of gentleman to whom a roving commission should be given to ask such questions as he chooses on any occasion? We want these powers to be exercised fairly. No one can say that the demand we make in this Amendment is one that limits the powers of the Resident Magistrates. It does not tend to that at all. We want these powers to be exercised with fairness and justice, and we contend that it is impossible for your Militiamen and Yeomanrymen and your relics of foreign service to conduct such inquiries as are contemplated in the clause with anything like fairness. Then let us go a little further into the interesting duties of these quasi-judicial functionaries in Ireland. Stipendary Magistrates here when they are in a difficulty, what do they do? Do they come to the Home Secretary for instructions? I should like to hear what the Home Secretary would say to one of them if he did. Are they responsible to the English Attorney General? Certainly not. Well, but what do the Resident Magistrates in Ireland do? They go regularly to Dublin Castle, and take their instructions from the Chief Secretary. If the Chief Secretary should not happen to be at the Castle, they come over to this country to take their instructions from him as to how they are to conduct their business. We are asked to look on the powers contained in this clause as if they were to be conferred on Stipendiary Magistrates in this country; but it is impossible to have the same confidence in the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. Can anyone feel confidence in the judicial fairness of a man who holds his position at the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, who acts as a policeman, and very often as a riotous policeman—who goes to the Chief Secretary and gets his instructions originally from Dublin Castle? Is this a man to whom judicial powers should be given? Would you dare to give these powers to any such class of men in this country, or in any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions, except perhaps in India, where

  777
  very curious things happen. I would venture to say that in all the Acts passed in this House in time of difficulty such powers were never given to a body of men subject to the will of a particular Minister as those you propose to give to the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. I fail to see what objection there can be on the part of Her Majesty's Government to this clause if all they want is that these powers shall be exercised, and exercised fairly. What objection can they have to putting these powers into the hands of men who are capable of exercising them because of their judicial office and capacities? If you had said in your Bill that Resident Magistrates should have the power, but that no Resident Magistrate should sit without having somebody of judicial training by his side, I could understand it. I should say—"Well, you wish to keep up the powers of your Resident Magistrates in Ireland; but you are willing to take such precautions as will prevent the miscarriage of justice or a misuse of these powers." But you do not do that. The Chief Secretary says that the Government will take care to see that the Resident Magistrates who exercise these powers shall have some legal knowledge. That, again, is a childish observation to make on the part of the Government; because the powers are not limited to any section of Resident Magistrates, but are given to all of them. There are no words of limitation in the clause as to the exercise of his powers by the Attorney General. You will not take the commonest precautions to see that the work that these magistrates have to do shall be honestly and judicially done; but you ask the House and the country to grant these powers to a body of men to whom you cannot point a parallel in any other portion of the three Kingdoms. I say you ask this country to do it; and, unfortunately, this country is altogether ignorant on these points, although we are endeavouring, and, I think, with some success, to give them a little knowledge now. For these reasons I strongly support the Amendment, and I hope the Solicitor General for Ireland will deal with this question, not as the Attorney General for Ireland did, by stating that the powers to be conferred upon the Resident Magistrates will be similar to powers exercised by magistrates in this country, but will answer the objections I have en-
  778
  deavoured to put before the Committee —these reasonable objections which we entertain to placing these powers in the hands of a political body.
  MR. JAMES STUART: It is especially necessary for our case against the clause in this Act that it should be distinctly understood what is the character of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. Now, I do not intend to traverse in any sense the ground that has been gone over already. We have had from an hon. Member who spoke before the dinner hour, a list of the Resident Magistrates at the present time in Ireland, and I think I am right in saying that in this list we find that 59 out of the 76 are military men in one form or other. But I just wish to call the attention of the Committee to the statutable position of these magistrates. They are appointed under an Act of 6 & 7 Will. IV., but I do not intend to weary the Committee with quotations from that Act. I only desire to refer to the continuing or Amendment Act, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 60, in which their position is clearly indicated, because it is provided that they shall receive their pensions or their retiring allowance or superanuation on a certificate of deligence and fidelity which is to be given to them, and then there occurs a provision that whereas magistrates, that is Resident Magistrates, are not under the order or control of the Inspector General of Constabulary, and as therefore he has frequently no knowledge of their diligence and fidelity, it is therefore provided that in the case of the superanuation of magistrates who thus cannot receive a certificate from the Inspector General of Constabulary, such certificate is to be given by the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. It is clear from this, and also from the clause in the other Act in which it is stated that magistrates hold office during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant or of the Governor or Governors, that Resident Magistrates are officially under the direction of the Government and of the Castle in that country. But, Sir, I want to call attention to this fact, and also that the whole of the justification that has been given or attempted to be given, as far as I can make out for this preliminary inquiry indicated in Section I., has been that it is the existing law in Scotland; and I know that before this Bill came before the House in its Committee stage

  779
  I, and I presume other Members of the House, read a pamphlet from some Liberal Unionist source or else from the Loyal and Patriotic Union, in which it is stated that our opposition to the preliminary inquiry to be established by this Bill was utterly condemnable, because what we are condemning already existed in Scotland, which is one of the freest countries under the sun. But the preliminary inquiry proposed differs vitally from the law of Scotland, and what I want to observe is this, that the Amendment which is now proposed has for its object to make this preliminary inquiry somewhat more in accordance with the procedure in Scotland. the procedure in Scotland is in no sense, so far as I understand it, similar to the preliminary inquiry as it is proposed by the Government, but were this clause inserted there would be a certain amount of similarity in respect, at any rate, of the Court appealed to. The Attorney General for Ireland, I think, said that in this country or in Ireland there was no such thing as having a County Court Judge to perform such duties. Sir, there is no such thing either in this country or in Ireland as this preliminary inquiry, and if we go to Scotland where such an inquiry—in a very different form, but still an inquiry of this kind—does exist, we there find that the corresponding individual to the County Court Judge is exactly the person before whom such an inquiry takes place, because the Sheriff and the Sheriff's substitute practically occupies that position, and the Crown Solicitor in Ireland is the answering official to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland; and I take it, therefore, that the argument on which this clause is presented to the House requires the insertion of this Amendment to make that argument at all hold water. I have only one other remark to make in respect of these Resident Magistrates, and that is that in Scotland you give the whole preliminary inquiry into the hands of a competent legal authority. In Ireland, you propose to give it into hands that are not competent in regard to legal matters. The Bill contains evidence within itself, that the authorities to whom you are going to entrust these powers are not competent legal authorities. Let us turn to the 11th clause and to the 6th paragraph. We there find—it is on page 7—that the Court of Summary Juris-
  780
  diction is defined as being, in other parts of Ireland than the Metropolis—
  "Two Resident Magistrates in Petty Sessions, one of whom shall be a person of the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant shall be satisfied."
  Well, it is evident from that you try to safeguard the character of such a Court by providing that care shall be taken that at any rate one of the Resident Magistrates who sit on it shall have a competent legal knowledge. It is as obvious as the day, that that means that these Gentlemen in general have not this legal knowledge; but if you turn to this preliminary inquiry proposed by the Bill you will find that it is provided that it is to take place before a single Resident Magistrate. Now, these Resident Magistrates, as you admit in the very clauses of this Bill, are not competent, by the possession of legal knowledge, to form a Court of summary jurisdiction under this Bill; therefore they are not competent for the inquiry which you say is similar to that of Scotland. One more remark, and I have done. This Bill appears to me and to many others, to be a Bill which puts everything into the hands of the Executive, and which overrides, wherever it can, the ordinary legal process. I do not wish to criticize any other clause than that before the Committee; but here, for instance, we find that practically the whole of this preliminary inquiry is in the hands of that Executive. We object to that position. We object to placing the whole Criminal Procedure of Ireland in the hands of the Executive Government, which is an English Government, and is represented largely by English and Scotch Gentlemen sitting on the opposite Benches. Our desire in supporting this Amendment is that we shall, if possible, separate the Executive from the Judicial authority and restore something of regular Criminal Procedure which is burst up and abandoned, article by article, in this Bill. We find here, in fact, as in many other things, the Tory Government and the Conservative Party are about to play like a bull in a china shop with the ancient principles of the Constitution under which we live.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to express my regret that the greater number of the Party opposite do not feel it to be their duty to be present during this discussion—the dis-

  781
  cussion of this very important Amendment. I also must express my regret that the Government see their way to accept any of the checks and safeguards that have been proposed from this side of the House from time to time during the discussion of this Bill. I believe it would be very advantageous for the Government if they accepted this Amendment, because they will have to defend in the future the administration of this very stringent Act, and they ought to know by this time with what vigour any complaint with regard to the administration of the Act will be urged by the Representatives of Ireland. They ought to know, from the character of those who will have to administer the Act—they ought to suspect, at least, how often they will be called upon to defend action that will not be consistent with the intention of this House in passing this stringent law. The proposal of the Government in the present measure differs somewhat from the Act of 1882. In carrying out the Act of 1882, the Government had to appoint Special Resident Magistrates to carry it out. They appointed, in Dublin, a man of such wide experience and such legal knowledge as Judge Curran. They appointed Mr. Hall in the South of Ireland. He was not a lawyer, he was not a retired solicitor, he was not a friend of the landlords—he was a promoted policeman, he was a man who had some knowledge of the administration of the law. I am not saying that he was the best possible person; but, at any rate, he was better than many of the magistrates who will have to administer this Bill. As to the statements of the Attorney General for Ireland, with regard to the present magistrates taking depositions, it must be borne in mind that they are assisted in their daily functions by Clerks of the Peace who are gentlemen of wide experience. I believe that the Resident Magistrates in the discharge of their duties have the assistance of men of great experience; but that will not be the case under this Act. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Holmes): Oh! yes; that will be the case.] Now, I have a book on Scotch law which states that in these cases the ordinary rules of evidence as regards the examination of witnesses should be followed; but the magistrates putting this Act in operation will not be supposed to do
  782
  that. At one time I resisted the operation of the clause in the Act of 1882; I resisted it up to the point of refusing to be sworn. Now, why was I brought before the Court at all? The officials of the district knew well that I had no sympathy whatever with the case they were investigating. The officials in that part of the country and the officials of Dublin no doubt well knew that I had delivered a speech a few days before I was summoned, in which I denounced in vigorous language the acts that had been done. They must have known that I could give no material evidence in the case they were investigating, and I hold that it ought to be the object of the Law Officers to get material evidence with regard to the matter under investigation. Well, the first question which the magistrate will put to the person coming before him may not be relevant to the case, and it is possible that the individual may not think it right to answer it; and the magistrate will be able to say that he is the best judge of the questions to be asked. I protested that I was right in not answering certain questions, and the magistrate said—"How dare you, Sir, make terms with the law?" The conspiracy under investigation might have involved 30 or 40 persons; yet I was the 201st person brought before that Court of Inquiry. Men were brought before it who had severed their relations with politics long before, and were asked questions relating to matters that had taken place years previously. When I declined to answer, the magistrate held out to me the prospect that I should go to prison. I elected to go to prison. But, before we reached that point, the magistrate tried, by threats and bullying, to overcome my resolution. He did not try the whisky inducement referred to tonight; but, when I declined to be sworn, he suggested that I should leave the country—that I should leave my business and my family and my country, because I would not please him. This was one of the Resident Magistrates appointed to carry out the law. I hold that I am as good a citizen as he is, and I maintain that I respect the law of the land as much as anyone in the country, from the Lord Lieutenant down to the ordinary policeman; and yet that man had the audacity, under the Act of Parliament, to suggest that I should leave

  783
  the country. This is why we propose to introduce checks and safeguards against the improper administration of such a stringent Act as this. But returning to that inquiry. Having failed by bulling and threats to compel me to submit to his terms, he tried to force me to do so by other means. I looked round the apartment, and what did I see? There was a detective with a revolver in his hand at full cock. I bade him put it aside, and he did so, but the magistrate did not tell him to do that. By every force of terror the magistrate tried to compel me to submit to examination, but I refused. I think it was a dishonourable position to be placed in at all, and I thought the Act was being used, in the first place, for a purpose to which it ought not to be applied; and, in the second place, I thought I should do better to incur the penalty under the Act than submit to the dishonourable terms imposed. Now, what effect had this treatment with regard to the Act of Parliament? Had it the effect of gaining for it any additional respect? No, Sir, my conduct drove back the Crimes Act in Ireland, because, shortly afterwards, the Executive could not get men to be sworn at all, and the half-a-dozen inquiries going on at the time were closed up in a fortnight. Men accepted the penalty of imprisonment rather than have to submit to the terms imposed by the magistrate. This will occur again, and I advise young men in Ireland, if the Government do not accept the checks which we propose, to decline to be sworn, and to go to prison—to resist the Government who are prosecuting their political opponents to the extent of trying to get them to leave the country. This advice will be followed, I have no doubt, by the young men of the country; and I say no matter how you pass this Act of Parliament it will prove to be a failure. The Scotch law, to which reference has frequently been made, provides that it should be stated to the person brought forward what is the charge on which he is brought up for examination. No such statement will be made, according to my experience, by the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. Again, by the Scotch law, it is also to be stated to the person to be examined that he is not obliged to make any statement unless he pleases or answer any question. That is what the
  784
  Scotch law requires, but this Act does not provide for any such protection of the witnesses. The magistrates will say that they are the best judges of what questions should be put, and if any protest be made by the person under examination he will be threatened with imprisonment. In my own case, when I was brought up a second time for examination I was sent back to prison, and if it had not been for the action taken in this House, I should have remained there until the expiration of the Act of Parliament, passing 22 out of the 24 hours in a cell 12 feet by six feet. Therefore, I hold that if the Government desire to get material evidence under this Act they will accept this Amendment and others that have been proposed on this side of the House. The successful operation of this Act will greatly depend on the confidence that will be excited in the minds of the people with regard to its administration. It will be absolutely necessary, in order to its proper administration, that men should be appointed to carry out its provisions who have some knowledge of the law, and who have some respect for the law, because I maintain that such men as Captain Plunkett, and many others like him in Ireland, have no respect whatever for the law. I know the private sentiments of the persons of whom I am speaking, I know their temper, and I know that they will bring to their judicial functions minds warped by prejudice and a determination to crush the people by hook or crook. I believe the Government will consult their convenience in future if they accept this Amendment—if they put the administration of the law in the hands of lawyers who have some respect for it, and who have some regard for the Constitution, for these Resident Magistrates in Ireland have no respect for the Constitution because they do not understand the Constitution. Their education and training has been altogether against the proper understanding of the Constitution. Therefore, I say that the Government will do well to place the administration of this very stringent Act of Parliament in the hands of men in whom they have confidence, and in whom also the people will have some amount of confidence. They will consult their convenience by doing that, because the other course on which they seem bent,

  785
  and the obstinacy which seems to characterize them in their dealings with suggestions made on this side of the House, will lead to a considerable amount of inconvenience and heartburning in future, for they will have to defend acts which will not bear strict investigation; they will have to defend many false and many erroneous interpretations of the Bill now under consideration and about to become the law of the land. I have had bitter experience not only of the Crimes Act, but of most other Coercion Acts passed for what is called the better Government of Ireland. I have no desire to see the people driven to a state of exasperation. I have no desire to endure those physical sufferings in the future which I have endured in the past; but, if it should come to that, I shall not shirk them. I shall be in my place in Ireland to contend against the wicked administration of this Act of Parliament, because many acts of Parliament designed for the good of Ireland have been wickedly administered by those in whom the Government of the day have had confidence. It is in the best spirit, therefore, that I now offer these suggestions to the Government. I have drawn from my experience in doing so. I cannot discuss the question from a legal point of view—that has been already done by those on these Benches who are well qualified to deal with it. The duty will be imposed on us to see that the Act, if it becomes law, is administered in a fashion which will press as lightly as possible on the people of Ireland; and I have no doubt that the Government will have often to defend the action of the administrators of the law—the Resident Magistrates and others. The law will perhaps be put in operation against Members of this House. However that may be, any improper administration of the Act which may result from refusing to admit the very reasonable Amendments proposed on these Benches, will bring such a storm about their ears as to make the Government regret the course they have taken.
  MR. CLANCY: It is obvious that in the matter of coercion in Ireland the Government are going from bad to worse. It is worth noting the progress that has been made from the hesitating, halting provisions in earlier Coercion Bills to the cynical perfections
  786
  of the present proposals. The section of the Act of 1870, which established secret inquiries, provided that any Justice of the Peace might open an inquiry. That was bad enough, considering the character of the County Magistrates in Ireland, three-fourths of which body consist of members of the landlord class; but, in the Act of 1882, by the 16th section, it was enacted that these inquiries should be held by a Resident Magistrate in the district in which the crime was committed. That was a distinct advance. It was found, on investigation, that the unpaid magistrates were not quite dependent enough on the Government of the day, and it was felt that some more dependent officials ought to be employed for carrying out this provision of the Act. But that was not enough for the framers of the present Bill. This Bill provides that any Resident Magistrate may hold these inquiries. How will that work? The Government will look out for some men of exceptional experience in hunting out crime, and their choice will fall, in all probability, on some person like French, or one enagaged in the Detective Department. Everyone knows that French was in the highest repute when he was in the Constabulary, where he stood at the head of the Detective Department. He was the man employed by the Government of the day to hold inquiries in various parts of the country, and was, as he said, "often obliged to work things close up to the wind."
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I fail to see the relevancy of the observations which the hon. Member is now making to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. CLANCY: I was trying to point out that such a man might be appointed for the purpose of administering this section.
  MR. COURTNEY: According to my view, that is not relevant.
  MR. CLANCY: I was endeavouring to show that the Government might select persons, who were engaged, like French, in hunting up crime by more than questionable devices.
  MR. COURTNEY: That would be totally out of Order.
  MR. CLANCY: Well, I will leave that point, and suggest that some members of the Irish Bar should be substituted for the Resident Magistrates, and I

  787
  cannot see why a proposal of this character should not be accepted. Surely the County Court Judges can furnish a sufficient number of men for the purpose of the Government. There must be among them suitable persons—they are nearly all of them connected with the landlords, and they are all experienced in holding Courts of Inquiry already. Between these men, and the half-pay officers, who have always been, and will be, mere creatures of the Government, there is the widest possible difference. The County Court Judge is not dependent for his salary or the continuance of his office on Her Majesty's Government, and the profession of the Bar has after all some effect in producing a sense of honour among its members which is entirely absent from the class of half-pay officers. This proposal, if it were adopted, would have the effect of assimilating, to some extent, the law of Ireland to the law of Scotland. The law of Scotland is this, that the inquiry must be carried out by a judicial authority. It seems to me that this is a point which has been overlooked. Now, I am open to correction if I am wrong; but I believe I am right in saying that, in the first place, no inquiry can be held like this in Scotland unless there is an an accused person, and, secondly, that it cannot be put in operation except by order of a judicial officer. We now ask that the inquiry should be conducted by judicial officers, and it seems to me that we have a perfect right to make this request, because the very worst construction only can be put upon the intentions of the Resident Magistrates.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I shall be glad if Her Majesty's Government can see their way to mentioning the qualifications which may be desirable in the gentlemen who will administer this part of the Bill. I speak from my experience as an officer, and while I think substantial justice is done, yet I should be disposed to say that difficult cases are not always satisfactorily or easily dealt with, and I assume that that arises from the fact those gentlemen who have had to administer the law were men without judicial experience. I should have been glad if the Government could have seen their way, in some degree, to make a concession to Gentlemen on the other side of the House in this matter. I am
  788
  disposed to think that it would give greater confidence in the administration of these powers, if people with some knowledge of the law had been directed to administer them.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: It would have been interesting to know how the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down is going to vote on this question. Notwithstanding the Platonic regret expressed about the absence of safeguard from this clause, we shall not be surprised to find the hon. and gallant Gentleman voting in the ranks of the majority. I think the Amendment before the House is the most important we have had yet to deal with. Hitherto we have had Amendments of a very important nature; but up to the present time I venture to say we have only touched a fringe of the matter, and that the pith and marrow of the question is the character of the tribunal to which the Government intend handing over these inquiries. Our opinion is that not only has the Government selected a bad class of officials for holding these investigations, but that if they were to rack their brains to find out the worst class of persons they could not have hit upon a class better suited to their purpose than that of the Resident Magistrates. We have heard what that official's duties and obligations are as defined by Act of Parliament. We know, Sir, what hostage to fortune this official is obliged to give before he can merit reward; we know that, when a Resident Magistrate in Ireland at the close of his judicial career claims the pension which most public officials enjoy, he has, as a preliminary, to go to his masters in Dublin Castle and obtain from the Chief Secretary a certificate that he has served him with diligence and fidelity, these being the words which are to be found in the Act of Parliament. We can imagine the cold reception which one of these officials would get if his acts as Resident Magistrate, and if the political views and sentiments expressed by him at any time, did not meet with favour in the sight of the Chief Secretary. We have further heard, Mr. Courtney, what the general character of the class from which Resident Magistrates in Ireland are drawn is. We have seen it proved from the figures supplied to us by the Government that the vast majority of Resident Magistrases are not legal gentlemen, are not

  789
  men trained in the law, are not men who have any special knowledge of legal subjects, but are, in the proportion, I think, of 59 to 17, half-pay officers or gentlemen in some way connected with the Military Services in this country. Well, Sir, that is not enough. I ask you whether the Irish. Resident Magistrates are drawn from the people, are they drawn from the classes who, in Ireland, may be supposed to be in sympathy with the masses of the people? We know that is not the case; we know that, on the contrary, the office of Resident Magistrate is a rest, a refugium peccatorum, that that office is the reward which every broken down half-pay officer, which every younger son or younger brother of an Irish landlord or Peer looks forward to when he cannot eke out his means in any other way. I venture to say that if the Return which is before the House could be still further supplemented, we should find that even a still larger proportion of that body than is indicated by the figures I have mentioned is connected directly or indirectly with the landlord class, a class whom we all know have for the last half-dozen years been engaged in deadly conflict with the mass of the people to whom these gentlemen are to mete out law under this section. What is the next fact we have to meet? What has been the relation existing between Resident Magistrates in Ireland and the people, and the politicans of Ireland for the past half-dozen years? There is not one of these officials, certainly not one prominent among them, who has not on some occasion or other come into violent conflict with some public man, with the National League organization, or with some of the prominent members of it. We know that one of the most important duties which these gentlemen have or had to fulfil under the Crimes Act was the duty of dispersing public meetings, and we know that in discharging that duty they over and over again came into violent, and I must say in some cases physical, conflict with Irish politicians who were conducting the national movement. That being so, I ask, is this this the class of officials to whom the Government ought to hand over the enormous powers conferred by this section? The Government themselves admit in this Bill that for the adminis-
  790
  tration of some of its provisions, at least, some legal knowledge is required. Then they go on to provide for the holding of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; they make this concession to public opinion and to our views—they require that one of the magistrates composing that Court shall be a gentleman possessed of some degree of legal knowledge. I assert, Sir, that if it is important that one of the magistrates composing the Court of Summary Jurisdiction should be a person having legal knowledge, it is ten times more important that the official who holds the proposed Star Chamber inquiry should be a person similarly qualified. It is said by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) that nothing of this sort is required, that any magistrate will be sufficient to administer the powers conferred under this section, because, as he says, any magistrate has power to take depositions. We will be content to limit the powers of this section to the powers of taking depositions; but is it not the case of the Government that something more than the taking of depositions is required. If all that they want is the taking of depositions, they have that power already, and this section is not necessary. We know very well that the duty of the magistrate who holds a Court under this section will not be merely to take depositions, but to hold a species of inquisition; to endeavour to rack from willing or unwilling witnesses information on any and every conceivable subject which the Attorney General may hand to him for investigation, and that the duties to be performed by the magistrate presiding in this Star Chamber Court will be duties as different as any can be from the mere duty of taking depositions. No, Mr. Courtney, the proceedings which will go on in the secret Courts, into which the Press cannot peep for the purpose of retailing what takes place, upon which, as the section at present stands, there will be no sort of check —the proceedings of these courts will resemble, not the ordinary proceedings of any Court of Law, but will resemble—and I should say considerably exceed—the proceedings which go on at a drum-head court martial. I have never been present at a drum-head court martial, but I can very well understand that that class of proceedings would be

  791
  far more congenial to the captains and colonels from whom the Irish Resident Magisterial Bench is recruited than the ordinary proceedings which takes place in a Court of Law. I wish now to advance another argument on this subject, and it is one which I do not think has been hitherto brought to the notice of the Committee. We have had some experience in Ireland of the exercise of these powers in the past; we all know that for three years under the Crimes Act this power to hold secret investigations was given to the Executive in Ireland, and was largely exercised by them. And what, I ask, was the lesson which these inquiries taught? Why, that in the one case where the duty of holding an inquiry was handed over, not to a Resident Magistrate, but to a competent member of the Irish Bar, namely—in the case where a secret investigation was held in Dublin into the Phoenix Park assassinations, and in that case only was a secret inquiry successful. In no other case out of the enormous number of secret inquiries held all over Ireland have the proceedings resulted successfully. Lot us consider the case of Kerry, taking into consideration the state of that country about the time when the Crimes Act was passed. In no part of Ireland was the necessity for these secret inquiries greater, assuming that inquiries of this character are necessary at all. A small district of Kerry, the distance round Castleisland, had been disgraced by probably more crime than had been committed in any other, I will not say equal area of Ireland, but I might almost say in all the rest of Ireland taken together. What happened in Kerry? The Government, instead of acting as they did in Dublin, instead of appointing a competent person, a barrister or lawyer, to hold a secret inquiry, sent down Captain Plunkett and other gentlemen of that character. These men held inquiry after inquiry, they brought up witness after witness, the inquiries were spread over weeks and even months, and what was the result? Absolutely nothing. In no single case did the inquiries held in Kerry lead to the bringing of a single criminal to justice; whereas, in the one case where they appointed Mr. Curran, a gentleman who is now a County Court Judge, the inquiry was eminently successful. Well, what happened in Kerry is not the only instance of the failure
  792
  of these inquiries. Several murders had been committed in or about the district of Loughrea, and the Government sent down a Resident Magistrate to hold inquiries there. As in Kerry, the Resident Magistrate failed, as he will always fail wherever duties other than those of a bludgeon man are cast upon him. If the Government found their action in this matter on the experience drawn from the administration of the Crimes Act, they will find in that experience the strongest argument for taking away from Resident Magistrates the powers conferred by this section, and handing them over either to the County Court Judges, or to some other competent persons. My hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has already drawn attention to the fact that by this Amendment he has brought the proposals of the Government more in consonance with the Scotch law, upon which law the Government chiefly rely in making this proposal. I do not intend to dwell upon that aspect of the matter. The only argument addressed to the Committee against the proposal of my hon. Friend is that the duties which this section creates are duties of a character foreign to those which are ordinarily discharged by County Court Judges. Well, of course, we know that that is so; we know perfectly well that up to the present time County Court Judges in Ireland have not been called upon to discharge such duties as are contemplated by this section. But that is no argument against the Amendment of my hon. Friend; the power created by this section is altogether a new power, it has never existed before except in the one case of the Crimes Act, where, as I have pointed out, it failed when it was administered by Resident Magistrates to whom it is now proposed to hand over the administration of it, and it succeeded in the one case in which it was handed over to a County Court Judge. The proposal to hand over this power to County Court Judges is a novel one; but so are the powers contained in the Bill we are now discussing, and if the Amendment is to be condemned on the ground that the proposal contained in it is a novel one. I fear that in using that argument the Government are using one which will tell with deadly effect against many other of the proposals of this Bill. I ask that the Government

  793
  should give us some undertaking that if they will not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend they will, at any rate, do something that will in some way provide that the officials to whom they hand over the tremendous powers created by this clause shall be persons competent to administer these powers intelligently, and who can be relied upon to administer the Bill impartially. I am sure my hon. Friend is not particularly wedded to the form in which he has proposed his Amendment. He would be glad to welcome any concession in the direction of his Amendment, and I think the least we can ask is that in some form or other the Government will acknowledge the wisdom of the Amendment. The point of the Amendment is one deserving the attention of the Government and of the Committee, and I think we are justified in debating the Amendment until we receive some concession at the hands of the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I do not intend to repeat what has already been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes); but I desire to say what the Government consider it well to do in regard to this matter. We do intend to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) which appears upon the Paper lower down—namely, to insert in Clause 1, line 8, after the word "magistrate," the words "of whose legal knowledge the Lord Chancellor shall be satisfied."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not know whether it arises upon this Amendment; but can the Government let us know to-night the nature of the other Amendments they have undertaken to propose on the subject of the retrospective action of the Bill?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Probably the right hon. Gentleman is unaware that the Amendment he particularly mentions already stands upon the Paper of Amendments.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I think we might have been induced to have accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), if we had not had an opportunity of studying the extraordinary Return which has been read by my hon. Friend the Mem-
  794
  ber for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) this evening, and which gives an account of the qualifications and previous callings of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. After having read that Return, it is perfectly clear to us that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland could not by any possibility reasonably satisfy himself of the legal knowledge of these gentlemen, for the simple reason that they have no legal knowledge whatever. I observe a most remarkable fact in connection with that Return, that there is a distinction made in it between barristers and practising barristers. There are about three barristers and two practising barristers given in the Return. I think that is the amount that the Profession of the Law contributes to the Resident Magistracy of Ireland. There are some other interesting items of information to be gained by a perusal of this Return. The main body of the magistrates of Ireland are half-pay officers, or men of that class—there are 59 of such men out of a total of 76 Resident Magistrates. We have just listened to a most interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Holderness Division of York (Commander Bethell). The hon. and gallant Gentleman has pointed out the general inability of men unacquainted with law, or men of military or quasi-military connection, to adjudicate on any questions in which legal points are of necessity raised. I contend there is no point of criminal practice in which a man's knowledge of law should be more thorough than the point in connection with the testing of evidence in criminal cases. It requires a man to have a considerable amount of practical knowledge and to be acquainted with the proceedings in Court, before he can possibly be qualified to sit and adjudicate on questions in connection with the exactness, or otherwise, of the evidence of persons brought before him. The whole character of this clause, the whole power which it is proposed to confer under it, is a power of so wide and so far-reaching a character that it is impossible for us to consent to it without opposition. We cannot consent for a moment to powers such as are provided for in this clause being conferred upon the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. We have unfortunate experience of the way in which these inquiries have been held under previous Acts; we know

  795
  well the power that was exercised under the Coercion Act of 1882 by Mr. Clifford Lloyd and persons of his class in Ireland.; we know that men were brought before Resident Magistrates, examined time after time, committed and re-committed to prison, and kept in gaol for months at a time. We know that secret inquiries were held with a view of extracting information, and with no success; we know that when that was done the political officials of the Crown in Ireland were of a Liberal tendency, and we can very well expect what will be done when not only the permanent officials of Ireland, but most of the political officials for the time being, are of an Orange hue. The permanent officials have always been Orangemen; but this is almost the first time we have had avowed Orangemen in high political positions. Take, for instance, the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Colonel King-Harman). Not long ago he went to Rathmines, and was rapturously applauded when he said he was just after joining the Orange Society. It is men of this class who are to be entrusted with this enormous power. We know that when a Resident Magistrate acts at all fairly, he is at once marked out on a Report of the local police for the censure and condemnation of the Government in Dublin. I can give instances which have come within my own knowledge when men, having acted fairly, men, having decided in a way which did not suit the tastes of the Sub-Inspectors and County Inspectors of Ireland, were watched and degraded, and sometimes dismissed. There was such a case in 1883. A Mr. Perry, a Resident Magistrate in Ireland, had attended a meeting and read a proclamation suppressing it; but his conduct on the Bench was extremely fair, and he refused to convict on every petty charge brought before him by the police. Shortly afterwards he was turned out of the Resident Magistracy; but he has been re-appointed, I think, by the Tory Government, and sent to the most remote part of West Mayo—namely, Belmullet. Captain West was censured, too, because he would not do what was required of him by the police; and I need not refer to the case of Mr. Butler, who was sent to a remote portion of Kerry because he would not do the bidding of the Government. The Government deal with these
  796
  men who do not suit their views as ordinary men deal with their enemies—they give them no quarter whatever. These men are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and are dismissed at pleasure; the result is that they are in the same moral condition that Judges of England were in 200 or 300 years ago, who were dependent for their continuance in office upon the will of the King for the time being. we know exactly what the conduct of such Judges as Judge Jefferies was. If the condition of the Judges was so excessively corrupt, what must be the present condition of these officials who are dependent for their places upon the will of the Lord Lieutenant for the time being? It is a monstrous thing to propose that the liberties of the great body of the Irish people should be intrusted to such men. We know that under this clause inquiries will be constantly held, that Resident Magistrates will be sent about from place to place to hold inquiries, and that the whole country will be agitated, disturbed, and terrorized by these constant inquisitions; no such thing as personal safety or personal liberty existing in the country. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has been again harping on the depositions. He assumes, because the depositions are taken in private, that the Court of Inquiry should also take place in private. The only persons whoso depositions are taken in private are persons who know that they know something about the facts they are being examined upon; and they cannot be examined under the cognate clause in the law of Scotland, and compelled to give evidence to criminate themselves. In the present Bill there is no such safeguard. A man can be compelled to give evidence upon any question put to him; and when men have refused to answer questions, on the ground that it would criminate themselves, the magistrates have taken upon themselves to say that the answer they would give would not be of an incriminating character, and because the witnesses would not then answer, they have been committed for contempt of Court and kept in prison a month at a time. If that sort of thing can happen under the law as it stands, what would it be under a law that gave magistrates absolute power to put any question they liked

  797
  to witnesses, and that, not in open Court, but in a secret Court where a man may be intimidated —where those poor peasants may be frightened out of their lives by one of these military swashbucklers? We know the kind of men these Resident Magistrates are—these half-drunken swaggering botheens, the scorn of the people, and the most demoralizing influence in the country. We know who these gentlemen are—taken from the most demoralizing class which has afflicted the countries of Europe. I think we are bound at every stage of the discussion of this clause to resist as far as we possibly can the creation of a Statute which will place such absolute powers and such absolute discretion in the hands of the Resident Magistrates; and I think that if the Government have any real regard for personal liberty—and they are very fond of talking about the terrorism of the National League—they would not pass a law which will place such absolute power in the hands of irresponsible persons, but would give some security to people who are to be examined in Courts of Law that they shall not be compelled, under pain of imprisonment, to make statements which would criminate themselves, and lead to the conviction of their friends who were guilty of no crime at all.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I believe no class of men could be chosen more incapable to discharge the important duty sought to be placed upon them by this clause than the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. And what is the reason of this? It is not that I believe that gentlemen who belong to the military profession are loss honourable, according to their code of honour, than barristers would be, but because I conceive that there is no kind of training in the world which can be given to men so unsuitable to make them civil magistrates as a military training. Now, have had personal experience of those gentlemen—not in the sense that I myself have suffered from them, which might be supposed by some hon. Gentlemen in this House to create in my mind a bias against them—but because I have been very closely associated with a case which was tried by one of those military Resident Magistrates, and at which I was present; and the circumstances were such that I
  798
  declare positively in this House that nothing would induce me to give evidence at a secret inquiry of this kind before these men. Now, I will briefly explain to the Committee my experience. Some years ago I was living in the South of Ireland, and there was a servant of mine who had been assaulted by a policeman. My servant was a Roman Catholic, and the policeman was a Protestant. I took a great deal of interest in the case because I believed the woman's statement, and I thought it was my duty to do all in my power to secure that justice should be done. Accordingly I engaged legal assistance for her, and did all I could to see that she obtained fair and just treatment. I went to the Court on the day that I supposed that the case would come on—the Petty Sessions Court of the place. That case did not come on, but a case somewhat connected with it did, and I am bound to say I was amazed by what I witnessed in that Court on that occasion. One of these military Resident Magistrates—I have no objection to give his name—it is Captain Hatchell—his name was road out in the list by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment—well, this gentleman placed himself in that Petty Sessions Court, with his back to the fire, and carried on the proceedings in the way that, I venture to say, would not for a moment be tolerated in an English Court. One man came forward as a witness. He had been a soldier—I happened to know something of the man. He gave his evidence exactly in the same way as he ordinarily expressed himself. There was nothing hard, nothing insulting or offensive in the man's manner at all; and this military Resident Magistrate actually threatened to send him to gaol if he would not give his evidence in what he was pleased to term "a more respectful manner." Altogether I was strongly impressed with the idea that it was absolutely impossible to obtain justice from this magistrate, and so firmly was I convinced of this that I wrote to a number of the ordinary Justices of the Peace in my neighbourhood, telling them generally of my want of confidence, and requesting them to come and see that justice would be done at the next meeting of the Court, when I knew this case would come on. I received a letter from one

  799
  of these magistrates, in which he stated that he had intended to be present, even if he had not received my letter, and that he regretted that I had been driven to make the application. Well, the next time the case did come on, and there was a full Bench of magistrates. Then the military gentleman of whom I have been speaking learned to behave himself, being restrained by the other Justices; and everything was done in an ordinary and Constitutional way, and the policeman was fined. The Resident Magistrate, however, showed his bias before the case was finally disposed of. He said—"I will not agree to that," when it was proposed by the other magistrates that costs should be given to my servant for the assault that had been committed upon her. I think anybody with a fair mind must have been pained when he heard the list read out by the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment, when one after another of these Resident Magistrates were described as military men. "What do they know about law? What can they know about law? I say that generally they know nothing about the law, and still less about justice; and I say it is simply monstrous, if you will consider the character of the inquiry you propose to give them power to hold, and the duties you propose to impose upon them —it is simply monstrous that this power should be placed in their hands. Why, Sir, it is not a question of taking depositions. Surely some knowledge of the law is necessary if men are to be able to ask impertinent questions. Now, the proposal which has been made to us—which is called a concession on the part of the Government—is an utterly worthless and unsatisfactory concession. In fact, there is no concession at all. The Lord Chancellor, we are told, is to take care that this power is to be given to Resident Magistrates who have a knowledge of the law. But where will you find in the list that has been read out to us Resident Magistrates who possess a knowledge of the law? They do not possess it; and unless we have a distinct assurance and security from the Government that an entirely new class of Resident Magistrates will be created, in whom the Lord Chancellor can have confidence, because they possess a knowledge of the law, the concession of the Government will be absolutely futile.
  800
  Well, I wish to say that, in my judgment, a genuine concession in this matter is called for, not only from the point of view of the immediate interests of the Government, but on account of their ultimate interests, if they are to secure that this section is to be worked. Already the Government may have seen in this House ominous signs that should lead them to consider that probably this section will not be worked at all. Already we have heard that the word may be passed that no one in Ireland ought to give information at all at these tribunals. If this is done, what becomes of your law? And I consider that if you are sensible men, you will modify your clause in such a way that these objectionable features—which make it reasonable, and, as I think, right, that the people should be advised not to give evidence—will be removed, so that you may got the information which you require under this section. I will only say, in conclusion, that it is proposed by this Amendment to give this power to the Crown Solicitor—a man who has experience in examining witnesses before the County Court Judge. Now, is there any man of fair mind who really believes that this matter will be so well and so fairly done by a Resident Magistrate as it would be done by a Crown Solicitor in the presence of a County Court Judge? Why, the County Court would be a check on the Crown Solicitor if he asked questions not pertinent to the inquiry; and the County Court Judge is a man in whom the Government have special confidence. They have such confidence in him that they are absolutely going to put a Bankruptcy Clause in the Bill, which is now before the House of Lords, into his hands, to be worked by him. What does that mean? Why, it means this—that they believe that there is no authority in Ireland more generally respected than the County Court Judge; and I say, without fear of contradiction, that there is no authority in Ireland so little respected as the Resident Magistrates, whose characters I have attempted to describe to this House.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I desire to point out very briefly—as I believe this is a subject upon which many Members desire to speak—that there is no real guarantee in the provision of the right hon. Gen-

  801
  tleman. He says, as a substitute for what we ask, that the County Court Judge will be the tribunal before whom this secret inquiry will take place, and that we shall get a little later on a promise that the magistrates who will work this clause will be men in whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant has sufficient confidence. But the legal knowledge of the Lord Chancellor himself might be called into account by some of my hon. Friends learned in the law. The Attorney General may be the king of hearts, and the Lord Chancellor may be the knave of spades, and so on. It gives us no guarantee at all; and I put it on a stronger basis when I say that out of 76 magistrates at present on the list you have 59 of them who, on their own showing, according to their own proud boast, are military men who do not know the law. Why these gentlemen would consider it a disgrace to their military training to know anything about the law. And even after you take these 59 gentlemen out, there is not one amongst them who has a practical acquaintance with the law. It is out of that residue that the Lord Chancellor has to appoint men of whose "legal knowledge" he shall be sufficiently assured. No doubt it is true that in a few instances you have appointed barristers to these positions, but in these cases you have appointed a paltry class of men who have been continually at the back-stairs of Dublin Castle—gentlemen who have not been able to make their living by honest effort, and who have been continually begging Members, night after night, in the Lobby of the House, for God's sake to get them something to do, Take the last appointment —Mr. Cecil Roche. How does he look upon his duty as a magistrate? Why, I know a case in which a young men's society held a meeting on a publican's premises, hung out a banner and created a disturbance. The publican came before this magistrate and gave evidence. He stated that he had asked these young men to take in the banner when the police called his attention to it. The banner was put out again unknown to him. For this offence Mr. Cecil Roche inflicted upon the man the full penalty of the law, notwithstanding that it was his first offence, and that he had hitherto borne an irreproachable character, and conducted his
  802
  house in a satisfactory manner, and notwithstanding also that he was ignorant of the offence committed. The magistrate who gave a decision of that exceptional severity was a short time afterwards called upon to decide a case where a young man, the son of a bailiff, who had been already 24 times in gaol, had stabbed a man in the street, and he inflicted a fine of 25s. upon him. I say that the people of Ireland cannot have an atom of confidence in such a man. Give us your half-pay captains, nay, give us half-pay corporals, in preference to such a man as that. When we use the expression half-pay captains, I should like, speaking for myself, and without consulting any of the Members of the Party to which I belong, I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand that we mean no reflection whatever upon gentlemen who have at any time served their country. We ourselves should be proud if the condition of the law in our country were such that if we had any military ability in us we might have an opportunity of exercising it. I say that we realize that there are many reasons which compel gentlemen to resign their military careers for private life, or for the civil service of their country. At the same time, there are a large number of these gentlemen who, as has been pointed out, being unable to advance themselves in the Army, or Navy, or Yeomanry, or Militia, while drawing from the State the half-pay they are entitled to, supplement it by being creatures of Dublin Castle. I made a challenge in a full House—though there were not so many Members present as there are now—and I now make the same challenge in Committee, and I hope I shall attract the attention of the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen putting their heads together over the way—on the subject of the latest case of the transfer of Resident Magistrates from one place to another —Mr. Butler, the brother of General Butler, who was removed from the county of Kerry. He was a man the Irish people have no reason to cherish a very warm affection for. He has done his duty strictly and severely. But we have always found that whenever he has had any duty to discharge, although his action has been characterized by severity, yet he has always shown a desire to ascertain the truth and to

  803
  harmonize his decrees with justice even when those decrees have gone against us. A number of men were brought before him charged with resisting the officers of the law in one of the houses that was burned at Glenbeigh. Will the Committee believe it, that these houses were burned down without the eviction being in one single instance legally carried out; and, therefore, as a matter of fact, the burning of those houses was an incendiary act? The Sheriff himself was not present, nor was the Sheriff's representative, but a young sprig of the aristocracy —the Sheriff's clerk—went and carried out this act upon his own authority. The Solicitor for the defence of these men charged with resisting the officers of the law—who was a gentleman—whose legal knowledge could not be questioned—placed this fact before the magistrates; and on a demurrer by the two legal gentlemen representing the Crown to plead anything but justification for that state of affairs, the magisstrates dismissed the ease against the prisoners. What did that decision mean? Why, that the evictions were illegal. What did the Government subsequently do? Remember that, when the magistrates gave their decision, the two solicitors representing the Crown gave no reason why the case should not be dismissed, either because they had no reason or would not condescend to give it. When asked for a reason, they said, in a defiant tone—"Your worships can do what you like," which I translate, "Your worships can dismiss the case if you dare." They did dismiss the case —two local magistrates. Mr. Butler was for the dismissal, Mr. Considine was not. The latter has been transferred to a place near his own property near Dublin, within easy reach of the fashion and comfort of the metropolis; whilst the other gentleman, Mr. Butler, has been sent to a dreary district in the wild part of the country. Mr. Butler was taken out of an easy district at a personal pecuniary loss of £200 a-year, and transferred to one of the most difficult districts in Ireland. I state that in the presence of a representative of Dublin Castle, and I ask, will he sit silently by while such an accusation is brought against it, however humble may be the individual who brings it. I charge them with having punished a
  804
  magistrate because he had acted according to his convictions and according to law; and I therefore ask them how can they expect us to withdraw this Amendment and rely upon their opinion of the sufficiency of the legal knowledge of those who have to administer the law? If I do not proceed further with this point it is not because I have not a number of instances which I could give to the Committee. I will mention another for the edification of the Committee. It is one that I have spoken about and written about frequently. It is an instance that took place in Kerry—a case that occurred before a gentleman brought from the North of Ireland, and who had never known the county before. The magistrate admitted to someone in the trial that they had marked a man for the purpose of making him inform against a number of others. I say I have spoken and written about these things, and yet the magistrate in question has never dared to contradict what I say. Two magistrates went into Tralee Gaol and brought this informer along, and the prisoner who was to be identified was put, as a matter of form, among three or four prisoners. In the first place, this man was a little taller than any of the others, and it would have been easy to know him for that reason alone. But to make assurance doubly sure, while passing the other men who were not in gaol for the same crime, it is alleged to me that the magistrates distinctly walked along the gravel, and when they reached the man they wished identified they walked on the grass. I have made that statement in the paper I conduct in the district. It was a libel, if not true; but yet no one has had the courage to proceed against me for it. A little later, however, one of the printers in my employ did a foolish thing, and these magistrates brought him up and gave him six months' imprisonment. The way these Acts are carried out in Ireland is a disgrace to Her Majesty's Government — these things were a disgrace during the Liberal Government — because the mainspring of all the evil action which takes place is Dublin Castle. We see that, in order to strengthen this system, another of the most notorious of the rack-renters of Ireland canonized and installed in Dublin Castle. I can see, in the remarks of the hon. and learned

  805
  Attorney General, nothing to make us waive our support to this Amendment.
  MR. FLYNN: I think we are justified in asking for some further assurance on this matter than we have yet had. We have a full knowledge of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland; we know the class from which they are drawn; we know their antecedents; we know their conduct in connection with the administration of the law; and, therefore, we strenuously support the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has put before the Committee. We wish to make it plain to the Committee why we require from the Government a larger and more satisfactory assurance in the direction in which this Amendment tends. A Return has been read by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny as to the number of Resident Magistrates in Ireland, their professions and their position. Out of 76 Resident Magistrates, we find that 59 are not lawyers at all; they are men who have had no connection whatever with the law in the past, no legal training, and who cannot be suggested to have judicial minds. It will not satisfy us, and it ought not to satisfy this Committee, that the Lord Chancellor should give his approval to all or any of these 59 Resident Magistrates, and therefore recommend them as competent to carry out this stringent clause. Out of 17 Resident Magistrates said to be lawyers, only a small number are men who have had any legal training whatever, and who are entitled to administer a law of this kind or deal with matters in which niceties of evidence are likely to arise. But I ask the attention of the Committee to a matter of which I have specific and particular knowledge. It is in connection with the Resident Magistrates in the County of Cork. I find that out of six Resident Magistrates in the County of Cork, two of these are half-pay officers — gentlemen who have served in the Army 21 years; that two of them are Constabulary Officers and that one is a barrister-at-law. But barrister-at-law in this case does not mean a practicing barrister. I ask the attention of the Committee particularly to the point that in the County of Cork not one of these six magistrates, to whom will be intrusted the administration of this very
  806
  important clause, is a man to whom English Members would willingly entrust in England the carrying out of a clause of this stringent and drastic character. We do not propose to carry the discussion on this Amendment further. We have given, and we have evidence to prove to the satisfaction of independent and unbiassed Members of the Committee, that there is a necessity for something in the direction in which this Amendment goes; and if the Government do not meet us, we know very well that the public in Ireland and in England will modify this clause in the direction of legality and justice.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 258; Noes 176: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 108.)
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The Government having refused to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), it only remains to be seen whether we can carry out our object by another Amendment to which we ask the Government to agree. The Government have refused to inquire into the legal knowledge of the Resident Magistrates, and my object is to secure a court which in some measure will be fit to hold inquiry. The Resident Magistrates have no legal knowledge, and there is not half-a-dozen out of the whole 76 who would be considered by the Lord Chancellor as competent to conduct those inquiries. The Amendment I propose will not render the clause cumbersome in any way, our only object being to secure its proper administration. I insist and I press it on the Committee, that something is required for the protection of persons who are likely to come under the operation of the clause beyond what would be afforded by a Court of one Resident Magistrate; and I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, after "a" to insert a "Court consisting of two or more." —(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) will see that this is an Amendment which cer-

  807
  tainly the Government cannot accept. There is no precedent whatever for requiring two magistrates to be present when such an inquiry is made, and there is no analogy to the proposal as far as I know of in any previous Act in which the provision for secret inquiry exists. To require that the Court should consist of two Resident Magistrates is to throw an enormous burden on the judicial forces at the disposal of the Crown. You not only require a magistrate in the Court of the district, but you require another magistrate not to assist, but to sit by and check him. I think it will be seen that this proposal of the hon. Member would not afford any safeguard or protection in the matter, and while it would be of no advantage in that direction, it would impose a great burden on those responsible for the administration of justice. I trust the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press his Amendment, and that he will allow the Committee to proceed at once to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H, Fowler). The Government have intimated their intention to accept that, and when it is disposed of we shall be in a position to proceed with the rest of the clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it will be well perhaps to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and go on to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. For my part, I have no objection to that course being taken, but I urge the Government to say, that if we abandon this Amendment they will consider this most important point. Suppose a question is asked, and it is said not to be germane to the inquiry; suppose the magistrate says that it is, we ask if you will give us an appeal from the magistrate. If you will, we will abandon this Amendment. You have two Judges in the case of Election Petitions, and in every case of summary jurisdiction you have two magistrates who have to agree. I think nobody should be sent to gaol except on the warrant of two magistrates. If the point I have mentioned is conceded by the Government then our objections to the clause on this ground would be met. This is our object. We do not seek to provide that the inquiry should be conducted by two Resident Magistrates;
  808
  but we want to provide that the magistrate who sends a man to gaol shall not be the magistrate who conducts the inquiry. I trust the Government will agree to the Amendment I have myself placed upon the Paper to deal with this point. This is a different case from that of ordinary depositions. A man may be asked a question here which will commit him with reference to matters outside the inquiry; he may be asked questions as to whether his children go to school, the state of his banking account, whether he owns or rents land, and I contend that all these question are of a nature to which a witness should not be subjected. Let it be borne in mind also that a man may be committed to prison over and over again for refusing to answer questions wholly immaterial to the issue. For these reasons, I think that the decision of more than one magistrate should be had before a man is sent to prison under this clause.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There is no necessity that this suggestion should be carried out. Under the existing law a man may be examined in private. He may be asked an improper question, and he might be committed, to prison for refusing to answer it. If he were committed, however, he has his remedy at law, and he has that remedy also under our Bill. We see no reason why that should not be a sufficient safeguard in dealing with this particular point of obtaining evidence, and we are reluctant to encumber the clause by introducing safeguards which are unnecessary.
  MR. T. M. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman has not referred to my Amendment. The Magistrates' Protection Act gives absolute immunity to magistrates, however improper the questions asked may be. If the right hon. Gentleman will repeal, for purposes of this Act, the provisions of the Magistrates' Protection Act, then, of course, I will agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment. By the Act I have referred to the magistrates are protected in any amount of illegality they may commit. Of course, the Attorney General will tell us that that is not so; but if you bring an action against a magistrate, the Judge will rule that this is a matter for him and not for the jury to decide. I have an Amendment on

  809
  that point also; and if the right hon. Gentleman will accept that Amendment, or give some assurance of concession on the point to the Committee, we shall allow the matter to pass. But we have no remedy whatever, and no one knows that better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I do not agree altogether with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the provisions of the Magistrates' Protection Act. It is only when a magistrate is acting within his jurisdiction that the Act affords protection to the magistrate.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland say whether there is to be any record of questions put by the magistrates and refused to be answered, which will enable the High Court to express an opinion upon the question? Because, otherwise, a man would be helpless if he were committed for refusing to answer; and unless the commitment shows what it was he refused to answer, it would be impossible that he could raise the question at all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will permit me to add that there is a difference between taking a deposition under the ordinary law and this procedure. In the case of ordinary indictment magistrates may take depositions in their private rooms, the person against whom it is made being present with his solicitor. It is only the reporters and the public who may be excluded in the case of an indictable offence. Of course, where summary cases are taken in open Court under Statute the analogy does not hold. Unless some provisions are taken such as I have suggested, the man is absolutely defenceless against illegality.
  MR. HOLMESThe Government are prepared to accept any reasonable Amendment, and there is one Amendment on the Paper which will meet the objections that have been raised on this point by providing that a shorthand note should be taken of everything which occurs in the examination. A similar Amendment was proposed in 1882; but it was not accepted, owing to the difficulty of providing shorthand
  810
  writers. Shorthand writers are now more numerous, and the Government will see their way to providing that there shall be a correct transcript of everything that occurs.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I quite admit the importance of the concession which the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes; but, unfortunately, I do not see that it is one which has a large bearing on the Amendment. I understand the action of the Court of Secret Inquiry would be that a witness is summoned before the Court; he considers that a question is improper and refuses to answer it, and then the power given by this section comes into force, and the witness may be committed. But what will happen is this—a witness is committed for contempt of Court; and, therefore, the Attorney General will see that the reasoning with which he endeavours to convince the Committee that this Amendment is needless does not really apply. As I understand the law, when a witness has been committed for contempt of Court the magistrate will make out a warrant; he will state in it that the witness has been asked a proper question and that he has refused to answer it, and that he is committed to gaol. I think that warrant will be conclusive, because no Court will be able to go behind it and investigate the statement, and in that way the witness will have no sort of defence whatever. It is all very well to say that you will allow the evidence to be taken down in shorthand; but what is the use of that if, when it is taken down, it will be of no value when application is made for the decision of a Court of Law? If I am right on this point I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will admit that, as long as such a warrant as I have described remains in force, it will not be competent for the party against whom the warrant is made out to bring any action on account of the injury done to him. It is a principle of our Courts of Law that a poor man imprisoned under any legal process can bring an action in respect of any illegality in putting that provision into force. He must first set aside the order of the Court committing him to prison; and what I am pointing out is that as long as the warrant is regarded by the Court

  811
  as final and conclusive, it is quite idle for any purpose germane to tills Amendment to promise that the evidence shall be taken down in shorthand, because it would not be open to the party aggrieved to use that evidence in any superior Court for the purpose of inducing that Court to quash the warrant under which he is committed. I, therefore, submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that his promise is not material to the question. We want that there should be some power of reviewing the action of Resident Magistrates under this clause; we want that there shall be a check on the action of the magistrate who commits a man to prison for refusing to answer any question put to him. Until a concession on that point is made I respectfully urge that the taking down of evidence in shorthand is simply delusive.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), although very satisfactory, as far as it went, did not, in my opinion, meet the case, because if there is a warrant simply for committal for contempt no Court will go behind to examine what the contempt is. Therefore, it will be necessary for the Government that they should undertake that the warrant shall allege the specific offence of refusing to answer a particular question, such question being set out verbatim, and not the general offence of contempt.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I agree on the point of law with the hon. Member with regard to the superior Courts; but the argument does not apply to the warrant of an inferior Court, in which the specific grounds for its issue must be stated.
  MR. T. M. HEALYWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman provide that in the Act? If so, we will withdraw the Amendment. Can anything be fairer than that?
  MR. HOLMESI have no objection whatever.
  MR. T. M. HEALYThen we withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The object of the Amend-
  812
  ment which I beg to move is to secure that the official responsible for seeing that the Act is carried out is a trained lawyer.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, after "magistrate," insert "of whose legal knowledge the Lord Chancellor shall be satisfied."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The Government are willing to accept the words of the Amendment that the Lord Chancellor shall be satisfied with the legal knowledge of the magistrate. I cannot, however, undertake that all the magistrates will be trained lawyers, as that would involve the question as to what constitutes a trained lawyer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How are we to understand that these persons are competent persons? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say these men will be either barristers or solicitors, I shall withdraw my opposition. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not do that. It is by the refusal of these reasonable proposals that the debate is prolonged. What is the meaning of the term "a man of legal knowledge?" Is Captain Plunkett a man whose legal knowledge is to satisfy the Government? The term legal knowledge is very vague. Are we to have men who have proved their legal knowledge by examination? You cannot appoint a Civil Service writer at 10 d. an hour who has not passed an examination. Are we to be told that the men who are to have power of unlimited imprisonment are to be men with whose legal knowledge the Lord Chancellor is satisfied, and no more? We know that the Lord Chancellor is a very civil man, and that he will not want to compel these men to undergo an examination. I ask the Committee whether it is not the fact that this Amendment has been met in form and refused in substance? Let the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland say, at least, that these shall be men who have at least been called to the Bar. It is not saying much of a man that he has been called to the Bar. I have been called to the Bar myself. I do not profess to have much legal knowledge, and my experience has been pretty much confined to

  813
  "eating the dinners;" but, however, let the Government provide that there shall be some smattering of the law in these men. If the Government will not, accept that proposal, it simply shows that in agreeing to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton they are keeping their promise to the ear and breaking it to our hopes.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Knowledge of the law is not a matter of inspiration or revelation, and my contention is that the Lord Chancellor should be satisfied that the Resident Magistrate has had such an amount of legal training and acquired such an amount of legal knowledge as would render him competent for the discharge of his duties. I did not move my Amendment in the spirit in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has accepted it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to regard the qualification of legal knowledge as a purely perfunctory matter. I desire that the Resident Magistrate shall be a competent lawyer, such as the Lord Chancellor, in the discharge of his official duty, would be responsible to this House for appointing to carry out this important provision.
  MR. ANDERSON: The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) undoubtedly means that the person appointed shall possess legal qualification and experience; and I am certain that had the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) been present, he would not have dissented from the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) distinctly stated a short time ago that the Government accepted the Amendment, on page 16, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. I confess that I was disarmed by what I thought to be a reasonable proposal of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland on behalf of the Government. I read the words of the Amendment on the Paper in the sense given to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, and I think that no words can be clearer than those which say that the magistrate shall be
  814
  a person of whose legal knowledge the Lord Chancellor shall be satisfied. What can they mean except that the person appointed to discharge this duty is to have legal knowledge to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor? That, of course, means that he is to be a person of some legal qualification and legal experience, and it is perfectly surprising to hear the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland taking up the position which he now assumes. I should wish the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England to be sent for, because I am sure that he would not agree with the course taken by the Government. I venture to think that this is another example of the surprising action of the Government, and I hope that some hon. Member will get up and ask the Government to state whether they mean what the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says they moan, because, without the meaning which is attached to the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, this Amendment is of no use. I have here a Return, not yet printed, as to the legal qualifications of the Resident Magistrates. I will read a portion of it. Here is one gentleman, aged 28 when he obtained his appointment; former vocation none; salary £425, which is raised—perhaps for his extraordinary ability and knowledge of the law—to £550. Do the Government mean to say that when they accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton they meant that the Lord Chancellor was to be satisfied with a person of that capacity? Another magistrate is on this list, whose qualification is that he has been an officer in the Grenadier Guards. I have known officers in the Guards—they are very charming persons; but I deny that they have any legal knowledge. Here is another gentleman, aged 39; he was a civil engineer and has served in the Militia. The hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has stated that being called to the Bar and having eaten a, certain amount of dinners, is not a very substantial or good qualification; but that qualification would seem to be thought a very sufficient one, if I may judge from one of the entries in the Return from which I am reading. It is

  815
  stated of one Resident Magistrate—Mr. Considine—that he is 35 years of age, that he was High Sheriff of Limerick in 1881, and that he kept all his terms for the Bar, and, I suppose, ate all his dinners with great punctuality; but that, for family reasons, he was not called to the Bar, Well, it would be a very interesting inquiry to find out what the family or other reasons were why this gentleman was not called to the Bar, but became a Resident Magistrate at a salary from the State of £500 a-year. But, Sir, this is really turning a very serious matter into a burlesque. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant may smile, but you are really dealing with a serious matter. [Laughter.] I do not think the Government appreciates the seriousness of this enactment as they ought to do. You are going to hand over powers never dreamt of before to young gentlemen who, for family reasons, were not called to the Bar. Is that a thing that is fair or reasonable, or even decent? We heard last night a good deal from the Government as to the waste of time in the opposition to this Bill; but the persons who are wasting time now are the Government themselves. This is a question which should never have been raised by the Government. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England is here, and that we shall hear from him if he intends to stand by the Amendment in the sense in which it was originally understood to have been accepted by the Government?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): When I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite I was greatly astonished, because he attributed to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England views which he never entertained. We discussed the question when we were going over the Amendments on the Paper. But I have since had an opportunity of consulting the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he says that he never used the words the right hon. Gentleman put into his mouth. He never thought of saying that these Resident Magistrates should be either barristers or solicitors. I am both disappointed and astonished at the manner in which this concession on the part of the Government has been re-
  816
  ceived. An Amendment was put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). We accepted that Amendment, although no provision to the like effect was contained in the Act either of 1870 or 1882. We have put it into this Act for the first time, and have thus introduced into this measure a limitation never thought necessary by any previous Government. The hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson), however, talks as if the phrase "sufficiency of legal knowledge" was here used for the first time in Bills of this kind. But he has either not read the Act of 1882 or he forgets its provisions, for in that Act there was a clause requiring the Lord Lieutenant to certify the legal knowledge of one of the magistrates who was to exorcise jurisdiction with respect to charges of offences against that Bill. Well, how did Lord Spencer carry out the Crimes Act? Did he interpret that clause as meaning that one magistrate must be a barrister? He did not. I appeal to Gentlemen opposite who admire the manner in which Lord Spencer carried on the government of Ireland; and I would ask them to inquire either of Lord Spencer, or of any Gentleman there connected with the Government of Ireland, whether it was not then the fact, and is not the fact now, and has not always been the fact in Irish history that some of the best magistrates in Ireland have not been barristers or people who have gone through a legal training. And it is not unnatural that it should be so. It is easy enough to get barristers for £400 a-year to do your work. But it is not so easy to get a successful barrister, and the result is that if you insist on having barristers at salaries of £400 or £500 a-year, you will not get the pick of the profession, and, probably, you will not get such efficient men as if you look in other walks of life for men of sound sense, of a certain amount of legal knowledge, and of good character, Such men as these will carry out the work you want them to perform far better than the inefficient barristers you would secure at the salaries I have mentioned. I have now shown that the interpretation hon. Members opposite would put on the words of the Amendment is not that which was put by Lord

  817
  Spencer upon similar words in the Act of 1882; and that the construction which we put on those words is one to which we must adhere if the Act is to be properly worked by the magistrates of Ireland.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I should like to begin by an emphatic repudiation of the proposition that we are in any degree bound on this side of the House by the precedent of 1882.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI never said that the right hon. Gentleman was bound by the precedent of 1882. What I appealed to was the interpretation of that Act by Lord Spencer.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYBut this Act is not going to be administered by Lord Spencer. And I will frankly confess that, even if it were, I am not sure that I should take a different line from that which I now take. I was not in the House at the time the Act of 1882 was passed. I hope that if I had been I should have objected to a great many clauses of that Act; but, be that as it may, I think the time has come when the Government must give the House some better argument in favour of their proposals than that this or that provision was in the Act of 1882. We maintain that the whole condition of Ireland and the circumstances with which we are dealing, are fundamentally different from what they were then. It cannot be denied that the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has explained the sense in which he has accepted the Amendment has taken the value out of his concession. I quite admit the difficulty of insisting that the gentleman to whom this power is given must be always a barrister or a solicitor. The mere fact of a gentleman being a barrister does not necessarily ensure to the Lord Lieutenant or the Lord Chancellor that he is possessed of legal knowledge and experience. I shall, therefore, propose—and I believe the right hon. Gentleman will assent to the Amendment—to insert "after legal knowledge" the words "and legal experience." The Amendment will then run—"Of whose legal knowledge and legal experience the Lord Chancellor shall be satisfied." I know that will still leave the proposal open to some objection, but I think it would, as
  818
  amended, prescribe an extra caution, and would give us an extra safeguard in these proceedings.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment to insert after "legal knowledge "the words" and legal experience."—[Mr. John Morley).
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I understand that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has admitted that it would be extremely difficult, under all the circumstances, always to get a barrister or solicitor as the Resident Magistrate acting under this clause; and, indeed, that the fact of a gentleman being called to the Bar or being a solicitor, would be but a small guarantee of his possessing legal knowledge. Therefore, I understand he concedes that the Resident Magistrate might not be either a barrister or a solicitor. That was what I meant to convey, in order to prevent any misapprehension in the observations I made a short time ago; but I did not mean to convey that this clause should be dealt with in a perfunctory manner, or that the Lord Chancellor would dream of being satisfied with a person, unless he possessed real legal knowledge. It is very difficult for a person to possess legal knowledge without having legal experience, and that being so I see no objection to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I am ready to accept the Amendment; but if I had accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) without giving the explanation that a Resident Magistrate acting under this clause need not be a barrister or a solicitor I should have misled the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, after "magistrate" insert the words "being a person of the sufficiency of who3e legal knowledge and legal experience he shall be satisfied."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The words of the Amendment are, "legal knowlege and experience." Does

  819
  that mean knowledge of the law, and experience of its practice? Will the Attorney General for Ireland accept the Amendment with that meaning? [After a pause.] The right hon. Gentleman does not answer.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I have answered the question frequently.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I should have proposed a previous Amendment on the Paper if I had not understood that there was to be a substantial concession with regard to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). I should have proposed that there should be associated with the Resident Magistrate a gentleman of legal knowledge. However, that is past and gone; and now we must take the Amendment as it stands. In the first instance, and as the Amendment first stood, I thought, after the remarks of the Attorney General for Ireland, that the supposed concession of the Government was no concession at all. I am glad to find that the Government have, however, accepted an Amendment upon the original Amendment; but still, even in its amended state, it is open to objection. It is quite possible and easy to find in Ireland gentlemen who are not barristers or solicitors, but who are, nevertheless, well acquainted with the practice of the law. Let me mention one—Mr. Huntley, of Cork, who might well be elevated to the Bench. Mr. Huntley is a man who has written on the practice of the Petty Sessions Court and of Justices of the Peace. He is a man of very high character, and would command general confidence. But I hold, at the same time, that the Government have it now in their power to promote from the ranks of the police such a man as Mr. Horn, who they will say possesses some knowledge of the practice of the law, and thereby they will fulfil the conditions of this Amendment. If they do not accept this Amendment in its entirety, we shall have a disagreeable state of affairs to meet—that of having this clause administered by certain officials like Captain Plunkett, and men of that stamp. I think, therefore, that it would be for the benefit of the Government if they accepted the Amend-it its entirety. [An hon. MEMBER: They
  820
  have.] Well, if they have, I have nothing further to say.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: After what has transpired, I think we can go on to another Amendment. I am not even now satisfied that this Amendment, as accepted by the Government, is more than a show on their part. But, so far as it goes, it is now clear; and, therefore, I think we may go on.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I rise to point out to the Government the necessity for reporting Progress. I am sure that even the most greedy of the Conservatives will be satisfied with the progress we have made, for we have swept away a whole page of Amendments. We had a very late night last night, and we are going to have an early, and perhaps an excited, Sitting tomorrow. And let it be recollected that we have made the progress I have mentioned in spite of a Motion made at the beginning of the evening by a Conservative Member. The Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) took up a great deal of time in the early part of the evening; but since then, and as I have said, in spite of that, the Committee have done a great deal of work, and made great progress, and therefore I hope that the Government will now consent to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JOHN MANNERS): The hon. and gallant Member says that we have made great progress. We have certainly made some progress; but some of the Amendments which stand immediately next on the Paper are almost consequential Amendments upon that to which we have just agreed. I should propose that we should proceed with those Amendments, and then we will agree to report Progress.
  COLONEL NOLAN: On that understanding I will withdraw the Motion for reporting Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Of course, the two first Amendments

  821
  standing in my name immediately after the one we have just agreed to are disposed of by the discussion we have had. I, therefore, come to the third Amendment standing in my name, the wording of which I shall have to alter, having regard to the Amendments already accepted on the clause. I shall move it in this form— "And being a magistrate for the county or place in which such offence was committed." This, I think, will make the clause run grammatical. Now, I need not debate on the subject of that Amendment. The clause as it stands, without the Amendment, would enable the Government to select their Resident Magistrate from any part of Ireland. If an offence, for instance, were committed at Cork, they might send a magistrate from Belfast, or vice versâ. That would, I think, be very objectionable. There are Resident Magistrates in Ireland whom it might be convenient for the Government to send on a roving commission all over the country. But that would be a very inconvenient course for others than the Government. In moving this Amendment, I can refer to the precedent of the Crimes Act. Under the Crimes Act, a magistrate empowered to hold an inquiry under that Act was required to be a magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where the inquiry was held. And in the Criminal Code Bill introduced by the Government some years ago, the magistrate to hold an inquiry under the clause corresponding to this was required to be a magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where the inquiry was held. The Government will, I think, see that it would really be very inconvenient if they were to have the power to select any one of the staff of 80 Resident Magistrates and send him all over the country. If there is to be an inquiry of this kind, let it be held by a magistrate on the spot. Of course, there might be cases in which Members of the Government might say—"We cannot entrust this case to a Resident Magistrate on the spot because, having regard to the terms of the Amendments we have accepted, the magistrate must be competent in point of legal knowledge to hold an inquiry; but the Resident Magistrate on the spot is not a person with the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge the Lord Chancellor would be satisfied." But it must be remembered that a Resident
  822
  Magistrate has a general jurisdiction over half-a-dozen counties. There is hardly a single Resident Magistrate whose jurisdiction would be confined to a single county, and, therefore, no difficulty of that kind would arise because it is inconceivable that within the range of two or three counties over which the jurisdiction of a Resident Magistrate would extend, there should not be found a single magistrate of whose legal knowledge the Lord Chancellor would not be satisfied. I will therefore propose to amend the clause in the manner I have mentioned.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1 fine 8 after "satisfied" insert the words—" and being a magistrate for the county or place in which such offence was committed." —(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The Amendment cannot be accepted. It is true that in the Act of 1882 the words "of the county or place" were inserted, but then there was not in that Act the qualification of a magistrate —in reference to the holding of an inquiry —which we have now introduced into this Bill. The Lord Chancellor will desire that one of these inquiries should be conducted by a magistrate possessing the best knowledge and the highest qualifications attainable; and for the purpose of securing that end it may be necessary to bring a magistrate from a distance. Considering the qualification for a magistrate conducting one of these inquiries, which we have inserted in the Bill, I do not think the choice of such a magistrate should be restricted.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I recollect Sir George Trevelyan stating, as Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that it was the intention of the framers of the Crimes Act, that no person would be employed in a judicial inquiry under it who was not a person of legal knowledge. That was not a provision of the Act, but it was a pledge given by the Government of the day. Then in the Criminal Code Bill, which was proposed by a former Government, and went to a Grand Committee, it was provided that the magistrate holding one of these inquiries should be a magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where it is held.

  823
  And I attach considerable value to such a provision. A magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where the inquiry is held, would be less likely than a stranger to be influenced by outside stories. He would also be less likely to ride roughshod over the people than he would be if he did not live there or live amongst them. If a man lives in a county his great desire must needs be to get on well and without friction with the people by whom he is surrounded and with whom he mixes. He is less likely than a stranger to the district to be imposed on by the police, or to send people lightly to gaol merely as it is said, for the sake of example. Magistrates who live amongst the people of a district and ride to hounds there are anxious not to come too directly into collision with the people; and for my own part I would much rather have a magistrate who rides to hounds in the district where he has jurisdiction, than a magistrate who rides to hounds in some other district at a distance from it. I would not, however, advise my hon. Friend to go to a Division on this Amendment; but I trust that in view of the fact that the Criminal Code Bill of 1883 contained this provision the Government will keep it in view, and act as far as possible in accordance with it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after "may," insert "if he so think fit."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question, "That these words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. T. M. Healy,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  QUARRIES (re-committed) BILL.—[BILL 239.]
  (Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Hurt, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Abraham (Glamorgan).)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendment made.
  Bill reported.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I observe that this Bill does not extend to Ireland, and as I find it has been recommitted, I wish to ask if the exclusion of Ireland was duly considered?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): I believe so; but I have no knowledge of it myself.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will ask the question of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean Division of Gloucester?
  MR. BLAKE: The exclusion of Ireland was duly considered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not like to move that the Bill should apply to Ireland, as I am not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of our quarries; but I would like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman has considered the whole of the case of Ireland?
  MR. BLAKE: I had communications from several Irish Members that the Bill would be opposed if it was proposed to extend it to Ireland.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

COLONIAL SERVICE (PENSIONS) BILL.
(Sir Herbert Maxwell, Sir Henry Holland, Mr. Jackson.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd May.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 4 (Mode of computing superannuation allowance to be granted in certain cases).
Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 16 and 17, leave out, "profits of his employment," and insert "salary and emoluments of his office."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'profits of his employment' stand part of the Clause."
DR. TANNER: I wrote to ask the hon. Baronet who has charge of the Bill what he actually means by this Amendment, "profits of his employment," and "salary and emoluments of his office." I should think these words are very nearly synonymous, and I should say that when any of these colonial officers is drawing pay from any office he holds under the Government in any of the various Colonies under consideration, that he would frequently get advantages which are of a pecuniary nature, and which are profits; and I think these would come under the form of profits

825
which would pay him better than if they came under this Amendment. I should like to know why the hon. Baronet proposes to introduce this Amendment, instead of retaining the words "profits of his employment.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY): I would submit to the hon. Gentleman that these words more clearly express, and in more technical language, that which was intended by the first drafting of the Bill. It is an improvement in drafting, that is all.
MR. M. J. KENNY: But it makes different sense. The difference between the original and the new drafting is this— that the pension could only be calculated in the existing drafting on the profits derived from the office; but under the new drafting, it is calculated upon the gross salary received, and that is very different. A man may receive salary as a Governor of a Crown Colony, which may include the expense of the Government of his house, and so on, and a variety of other things which are by no means a profit to him, and so far as I can gather, the pension would be calculated, not on the net salary, but upon the gross salary of such an official; and, therefore, it might lead to abuses. I have road this Clause 4 very carefully; but I see that the new words it is proposed to introduce makes the clause quite different, and, to my mind, most objectionable.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I think if the hon. Member will read the new clause which I propose to insert instead of Clause 3, and will read that, in conjunction with Clause 4, he will find that the maximum pension is included, and every safeguard is taken that the pension shall bear the proper proportion to the joint services of the Governor.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Application of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 113, and 35 & 36 Vict. c. 29, to High Commissioner of Cyprus).
MR. M. J. KENNY: I rise for the purpose of moving the omission of this clause; and I hope the Committee will pay some attention to it. This is a clause to include in the category of Colonial or ex-Colonial
826
Governors, the High Commissioner of Cyprus. The Island of Cyprus means a not loss to this country of £35,000 a-year—that is to say, there was voted out of the Consolidated Fund, to make good the loss occasioned by having the island, something like £35,000 a-year. There may be any number of High Commissioners of Cyprus, as the island is a healthy place; but I want to point out that the High Commissioners may die off, or to avoid the danger of so dying off, some may be disposed to run away from their appointments, and thus get this pension. When we come to consider the loss which this island is already to the taxpayers of this country, I think it extremely unreasonable we should be called upon to contribute something like £1,000 a-year, or two-thirds of the salary of the High Commissioner of the Island of Cyprus, and thus increase the tax already placed upon the taxpayers of this country, owing to the inability of the inhabitants of Cyprus to pay sufficient taxes for the administration of the island. Cyprus is by no means a Colony, in the ordinary sense of the term, and if this is to go on, we do not know where it is to stop. I should like to know for what reasons the Government have come forward and included this clause in the Bill; I should like to know how many of these ex-Commissioners there are to whom it is proposed this Bill shall apply; and to have some estimate as to what may be the ultimate cost of including this clause.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): Of course, I do not propose to go into the question as to whether it was desirable to take Cyprus under our care; but we have got it, and we administer it as a Crown Colony. We are bound to do so, and the consequence is we are bound to have an Administrator there. It follows that if we are to get a good Administrator, we must deal with him in the same way as with Governors of other Colonies, and reward him accordingly. The only object of this section is to bring the Administrators of Cyprus into the same position as the Governors of other Colonies. Cyprus is not, in the strict sense, a Colony; but it is governed as a Crown Colony. In respect of the other question which the hon. Gentleman asks, may I state the first Governor of Cyprus

827
was Lord Wolseley, who has no pension as such Governor. The next Governor, Sir Richard Biddulph, was one who has likewise no pension, and the present Governor, Sir Henry Bulwer, has not retired from the service; therefore there has been, at present, no Governor at Cyprus enjoying a pension. If the hon. Member is right in saying it is a healthy place, he may hope the Administrators may live for some time before retiring, and will, therefore, not require pensions for any length of time.
MR. M. J. KENNY: I merely wanted to ask whether those gentlemen who have been High Commissioners would, supposing the Bill were now law, be entitled to receive a pension; and whether any existing law would enable them to retire on a pension?
SIR HENEY HOLLAND: No, Sir; there is no such law.
DR. TANNER: When I first entered Notice of opposition to this Bill, I had sincere doubts as to the course I ought to pursue. Naturally, I am an unsuspicious person, and I have found that I am of too confiding a nature; but when I found this clause in the Bill, I, of course, strongly objected to it. Owing to my ignorance of the technicalities as to the entering of notice of opposition to certain clauses in regard to certain points to which I object, I unfortunately made a mistake in dealing with it. I can now, however, very easily see the reason why the Government have shown an inordinate amount of anxiety about this Bill; it is in order to protect their properties in this veritable white elephant—the Island of Cyprus. The Island of Cyprus, we all know, is one of those very undesirable subjects about which there is great doubt whether it was of any use whatever, or likely to be of any protection to this country. It weighs upon this country in every possible way, and tends rather to promote a casus belli in connection with other countries; and, what is further, we see that the Government are trying to make a Colony of it. It has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland) that hitherto it has not been considered a Colony; and, accordingly, it is proposed to make provision for the Governors of the Island similar to the provision made for the Governors of other Colonies connected with the British Empire. What are the
828
Government doing now? They know the difficulties that beset them on all sides in connection with the occupation of Cyprus and the suspicion of Continental Governments, and they are now trying to get in this thin end of the wedge for carrying out their policy of peace without honour in connection with this Island. Consequently, I shall take upon myself to move the omission of the clause, and I shall oppose it by every means. I sincerely hope I may get assistance in disputing this insidious attempt of the Government to press the Bill through always at this late hour of the night.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I confess I am at a loss to understand the terms in which this clause is drawn. The right hon. Gentleman states that no past Governors of this Island can be entitled to pensions.
SIR HENRY HOLLAND: They will be entitled to pensions for services; but not for service in the Island only.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: Not entitled to pensions quâ Governors of Cyprus for all practical purposes, for the purposes of this section, they are not entitled to pensions at all. That being so, I want to know why the draftsman has drawn the clause, so that it will apply to persons who have ceased to be Governors of the Island before this Act is passed, as well as those who cease to be Governors after the passing of the Act? The two persons who have been Governors—Lord Wolseley, and another gentleman whose name I did not catch—what is the object of taking power to give them pensions if they are not entitled to them? The right hon. Gentleman has not explained that. The section is made retrospective, although the Colonial Secretary says there is no necessity to make it retrospective. At least, he should explain what seems the very peculiar framing of the section.
MR. CHANCE: I think I must move to report Progress, for this is no time to take a discussion on such a Bill. I recollect, when Cyprus was taken in charge, there was a great parade of intended improvements in administration, and it was said though this would involve some charge upon this country at first, later on that charge would be reimbursed. But now we have the Government coming for money—

829
sponging on the taxpayers of this country—by a clause that, I think, requires a closer scrutiny than it can receive at this hour. As my hon. Friend (Mr. M. J. Kenny) has pointed out, not only have we the statement that no High Commissioner who has served previously to the passing of the Act is entitled to a pension, lout we have here words that distinctly bring those gentlemen within the meaning of the Act entitling them to pensions. The words of the clause would apply to Lord Wolseley and the other gentleman not named. We should like more detailed information, and I feel constrained to move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sitagain."—(Mr. Chance.)
SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist with this Motion. I am sorry if I have not explained the point, which seemed a very small one. This is not a question as to the general expenditure of Cyprus.
MR. CHANCE: You are asking for money.
SIR HENRY HOLLAND: We have Cyprus on our hands. We have not the Sovereignty, but we have to govern it as we govern a Crown Colony. We must have a Governor, and surely no one can doubt that service as Administrator of Cyprus should be on the same footing as the administration of a Crown Colony? In respect to the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), it is, as I said before, not a question whether the Governors, who in the past have done their duty in the Island, should be pensioned for it, but that service there may be counted in with services entitling to a pension. I really hope, after this explanation, we may go on with the Bill of which we have passed the most material part.
DR. TANNER: I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) will press his Motion. In addition to the points I have urged, it has been clearly shown that the two preceding Governors of Cyprus have managed their affairs in so good a manner that, beside being Governors, they have enjoyed many other honorariums. They have held other posts, they were officers of high military rank. The first High Commissioner, Lord Wolseley, was a general in the Army, and enjoyed
830
many subsidies that accrued to him from that position. I do not understand why the Treasury Bench, and, notably, the right hon. Gentleman who has the Bill in charge, press the measure with such pertinacity? Possibly, it is because they are a Conservative Government nominally, and consequently consider that Cyprus is specially under their care. The Island was first acquired by a Conservative Government, and they feel bound, in every possible way, to pay in an inordinate and exorbitant way such officers as they may promote to high office in the Island.
SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I believe it is the fact that Sir Henry Bulwer, the present High Commissioner, served for many years in Natal, and I presume the clause is only that he, and others in like position, may not lose the advantage of service in different parts of the world.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: The hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) has expressed his opinion that a Tory Government press on the Bill, because it contains provisions for the benefit of Governors of Cyprus, in whom he supposes the Government are specially interested; but I may remind him that the Bill was drafted by our Predecessors in Office.
MR. M. J. KENNY: If all the Governors of Cyprus were like those of the past I do not know that I should care to criticize this clause. I do not exactly know the salary of the High Commissioner—I suppose some £2,000 or £3,000 a-year. But what would be possible under the clause is that persons holding minor appointments, not gentlemen of Lord Wolseley's rank and character, might be suddenly thrust into this position, and have their pensions calculated upon the high rate of pay attached to the office, and by that means a fraud would be perpetrated upon the taxpayers. If we have an undertaking that such things would not be done, probably my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) would withdraw his Motion.
SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I can only give the assurance that no Government would appoint to a place like Cyprus a man not competent for the duties of this important position. The object of the Bill is to secure good men for the post, putting them in the same position as regards pensions as other

831
Governors. The new clause, as the Committee will see, limits the amount of pension to two-thirds of the amount of the salary and emoluments. I trust hon. Members will now allow us to proceed.
MR. ILLING WORTH: I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chance) will consent to withdraw his Motion. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Holland) that there should be no distinction, so far as the Governor is concerned, in consequence of the policy under which Cyprus was occupied. Under the conditions we obtained the Island, we are bound to administer it.
MR. CONYBEARE: That is quite true; but is not the responsibility shared with, the Turks, and should not the Turks pay a share?
SIR HENRY HOLLAND: A certain subsidy is, by Convention, paid to Turkey; the surplus accrues to this country, and the administration is ours.
MR. CONYBEARE: But with a loss of £25,000, whence is the surplus to come?
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I do not think my point has been met. I agree that it is quite reasonable that Governors of Cyprus should be entitled to have their time in Cyprus allowed in calculating the period for earning a pension, and if that was all the clause effected, I should not oppose it. But my objection is, that this section does a great deal more than that. It does not confine itself with enabling the Government, when pensioning those gentlemen who have served as Governors of Cyprus, to to take into account the time served as Governors of Cyprus, it empowers the Government to give pensions simply for service as Governor of Cyprus. It bears that interpretation; but I venture to say the proper way to carry out the object said to be in view, is not to draw the section in this retrospective manner, but to add a Proviso somewhat in this form—
"Provided always, That in the case of any person who has served as Governor of Cyprus in calculating his time of service, the time of service as Governor of Cyprus shall he taken into consideration."
SIR HENRY HOLLAND: It has reference to the present Governor, now acting as such.
MR. CHANCE: I am willing to withdraw my Motion on condition that the
832
"Report" stage is taken at a reasonable hour, and after a reasonable interval of time.
SIR HENRY HOLLAND: Yes; certainly.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 (Definition of permanent Civil Service of a Colony).
Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words "or superannuation allowance."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. M. J. KENNY: May I ask, would service in a self-governing Colony be calculated in fixing pensions in the term of service of those who subsequently held office as Governors of a Crown Colony?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The sum he receives from a Colony, and is entitled to receive, will be deducted from the pension he receives in respect to work in Cyprus or anywhere else.
MR. M. J. KENNY: That is not exactly a satisfactory answer. I object to persons who hold office conferred on them by a Colonial Government, practically an independent Government, claiming the time they have so served, together with the term served under the Imperial Government. I think there should be a limitation in Clause 6 to the term in a Crown Colony only to prevent abuses that might arise.
SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I would call the hon. Member's attention to Clause 2 as amended, which provides that the Treasury shall determine the portion of the payment from the Consolidated Fund, or moneys voted by Parliament, and that there shall be no payment there from in respect of any employment in the permanent Civil Service of a Colony. The Imperial taxpayer will not be called upon to pay for pensions in respect to service in a self-governing Colony.
DR. TANNER: Then there can be no harm in defining that. If you introduce the word in line 35 "of any Crown Colony" that would meet the object.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not the Amendment under discussion.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
New Clauses—
On the Motion of Sir HERBERT MAXWELL, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, leave out Clause 3, and insert the following Clause:—
(Provision for pensions.)
"A person shall not receive by way of pension, under the Colonial Governors (Pensions) Acts, 1865 and 1872, an amount which, together with any pension for service in the permanent Civil Service of the State or of a Colony, exceeds the sum of £1,000 a-year, or two-thirds of the salary and emoluments of his office in that service, whichever is greater. But his pension under the said Acts shall not be reduced by reason of his pension in respect of the said service being an emolument within the meaning of section 7 of 'The Colonial Governors (Pensions) Act, 1865.' "
On the Motion of Sir HERBERT MAXWELL, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, after Clause 6, insert the following Clauses:—
(Provision against double pensions.)
"A person shall not receive a pension under the Colonial Governors (Pensions) Acts, 1865 and 1872, or this Act, and also under section 12 of 'The Superannuation Act, 1859.' "
(Explanation of terms.)
"The expressions 'permanent Civil Service of the State,' 'permanent Civil Service of Her Majesty,' and 'permanent Civil Service of the Crown,' are hereby declared to have the same meaning, and this Act and any enactment relating to salaries and pensions shall be construed accordingly.
"In this Act 'pension' includes superannuation allowance."
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 251."]

TRUCK BILL,— [BILL 109.
[Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Warmington, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Arthur Williams, Mr. Howard Vincent, Mr. Esslement.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd May.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 3 (Workmen to be entitled to advance of portion of wages).
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be postponed,"—(Mr. Bradlaugh,)—put, and agreed to.
New Clause—
(Servant in husbandry.)
" Nothing in the principal Act or this Act shall render illegal a contract with a servant in husbandry for giving him food, drink, a cottage, or other allowances or privileges in addition to money wages as a remuneration for his services,—(Mr. Stuart-Worthy,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be road a second time."
MR. C. T. D. ACLAND: I hope the Government will be inclined to accept the Amendment I have to move to this new clause, which is to insert after the word "drink," the words "not being alcoholic." I am not especially anxious for the word "alcoholic," if "intoxicating" will suit the Government better, though there is some difference between the two. My point is that in some parts of England—certainly in the West, and, I believe, in other parts of the country—labourers have, by contract, to receive part of their wages in intoxicating liquor, and this custom has been found to be exceedingly detrimental to the labourers themselves and the health of their families. One result of taking home part of their wages in liquor is that, having more than they care to drink themselves, children of tender age at home learn to drink this liquor, often of the roughest and worst possible kind. Besides that, when a farmer has produced, by accident or carelessness, an inferior liquor of an intoxicating character which he cannot sell in the ordinary way, he passes it off in payment to his labourers. I have known this happen; and I have known a farmer decline to engage a man who would not accept part of his wages in liquor; and I have also known labourers, who have been imprisoned for being intoxicated, complain that they could not get employment unless they accepted liquor as part of their wages. It seems to me that hardly any argument is required to establish the reasonable nature of the Amendment I propose.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, after "drink," insert "not being alcoholic." —(Mr. C. T. D. Acland.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. C. W. GRAY: This Amendment is a very important one; too important to go into at this time in the morning. I shall strenuously oppose it; but I should prefer to urge my argument at a more convenient time. I will now move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. C. W. Gray.)
MR. BRADLAUGH: I will not oppose the Motion to report Progress. I only proposed to take these clauses on the understanding that they were not opposed.
SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I would call attention to the state of this Bill, one of the most puzzling Bills, in its present form, I have ever had to deal with. The Government Amendments are larger than the original Bill; and when you come to look at these Amendments with the original Bill, you have the greatest difficulty in finding what is the real state of the proposals before the House. I am told that it is contrary to our practice, at this stage, to move that the Bill be reprinted; but might I suggest to the Government that a Paper might be circulated, showing the effect of their Amendments upon the Bill? If such a Paper could be circulated from the Home Office, it would be of the greatest convenience to hon. Members interested in the Bill.
MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to know when the Government will consent to taking this measure at some reasonable time? The 3rd clause has now been postponed several times, because it contains contentious matter, and now we have the new clause postponed, because of a small, though not unimportant, Amendment of the hon. Member for Launceston (Mr. C. T. D. Acland). If we are always to be put off until 2 in the morning, there is no hope of our getting forward with the Bill. I would appeal to the Government to fix the Bill for some hour when there would be reasonable prospect of making progress with it.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): As to what fell from the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease), he only
836
describes that which necessarily arises when the Government, friendly to the progress of a Bill, is obliged to amend it; but I shall be able to place in his hands a reprint of the Bill, and I have a few copies for hon. Members who desire them.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I am very much indebted to the Government for the pains they have taken to make this a practical measure. I make no complaint whatever of what the Government have done. I am sure they are actuated by the desire to make it a good Bill.
MR. CONYBEARE: I make no complaint. I only appeal to the Government to give us some assurance that the Bill will be taken at a time when we can make progress with it.
MR. MUNDELLA: It is very inconvenient for Members to sit here for three or four nights in expectation of the Bill, and then to find immediately we reach a crucial Amendment that Progress is to be reported. I should be glad to know if the Government would agree to bringing the Bill on at an hour when we can deal with this important Amendment, and which, though it is opposed, the best agricultural authorities are in favour of?
MR. CONYBEARE: I must press my appeal upon the Government. I do not think we are being treated in a friendly manner, I, perhaps, may not expect to be treated in a friendly manner by the Government; but I may claim a little courtesy when I repeat the appeal that has been endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) that the Bill should be taken at a reasonable time.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Hon. Members must be aware that it is not a matter in which we have any discretion. It is not our Bill, and it is not in our power to bring the Bill on at an early hour.
MR. CONYBEARE: I contend it is in the power of the Government to make such arrangements that other Business might cease at an earlier hour.
MR. MUNDELLA: I only ask that facilities should be given to the Bill after the main Business of the evening is disposed of. To-night, for instance, the Government were engaged upon Business of their own, when they might have allowed this Bill to come on. On some other night it might come on

837
after other Business is disposed of, say, at 1 o'clock. If that is not done, I should oppose the Motion to report Progress.
MR. FINCH-HATTON: May I say the Bill might have come on an hour earlier, had not hon. Members chosen to engage in a desultory discussion upon Cyprus.
MR. CHANCE: The discussion to which the hon. Gentleman refers did not occupy 20 minutes. He could not have been in the House during the discussion, and I would advise him in future, before hazarding such a statement, to look at the clock.
MR. FINCH-HATTON: That is exactly what I did.
MR. C. T. D. ACLAND: There can be no difficulty in providing facilities on another occasion; and if there is not a promise to give them, I really must divide against the Motion to report Progress.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): The hon. Member is surely most unreasonable. It is within his recollection that the hon. Member most interested (Mr. Bradlaugh) has, in the most frank manner, said he makes no complaint whatever against the Government, who have shown their friendly spirit towards the Bill. I am sure hon. Members will see, having regard to the time and the hour at which we meet again to-morrow, it is not unreasonable to report Progress if a long discussion is anticipated, and the Government are not to blame in acceding to a Motion to which the hon. Member for Northampton has himself assented. The Government will give every possible facility to further the progress of the Bill, as they have hitherto. If to night another Bill has had precedence, it was because it was a small measure necessary to be passed, and it was not supposed would be met with opposition. However, that Bill is now out of the way, and the Government will deal with this Bill in a friendly spirit, and with a desire to co-operate with the hon. Member in making it a good measure.
MR. MUNDELLA: Still the hon. Gentleman does not undertake that, on the next occasion, it shall come on before other Government Business that may happen to be on the Paper.
MR. CHANCE: I think the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member
838
for the Brightside Division of Sheffield is rather stronger than he thinks, when he intimates his intention of opposing the adjournment of the debate. When another Bill was before the House I made a similar Motion; but I withdrew it on being informed that an intimation had been made by someone on the Government side of the House that, if the discussion on it was strangled, the opposed clauses of this Bill would be taken. Although by no means satisfied with that intimation, I withdrew my Motion; and yet, when the Government have had the advantage of getting their Bill through, they will not now do something towards getting these clauses taken. I do not think there is any serious objection to this clause. Only one hon. Member has opposed it, and I do think we might as well make an end of it, and thus secure a substantial advance with the Bill.
MR. CONYBEARE: I am opposed to going on with this Bill. I have great respect for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; but when he talks of the friendliness of the Government towards this Bill, and of the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), we understand, as far as the House is concerned, that no facilities have been afforded by the Government. All the Amendments have been arranged outside the House; but the contentious matter must be postponed to some other night. We have a right to press for some assurance from the Government that when the Bill comes on next time it shall be at such a reasonable hour as will enable us to make some progress with the contentious part of the Bill; otherwise, it will go on night after night, until it comes to be included in the "Massacre of the Innocents."
MR. BRADLAUGH: For my part, I can assure the House that I will put the Bill down as often as I can.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

MOTIONS.

  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDRES BILL.
  On Motion of Baron Henry De Worms, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by

  839
  the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Caterham and District Gas, Sunbury Gas, and Stowmarket Water, ordered to be brought in by Baron Henry De Worms and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented and road the first time. [Bill 248.]

  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Baron Henry Do Worms, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilties Act, 1870," relating to Bedford Gas, Long Melford Gas, Musselburgh Gas, Penmaenmawr Gas, and Portsea Gas, ordered to be brought in by Baron Henry De Worms and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 249.]

  WATER PROVISONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Baron Henry De Worms, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Beverley Water, Freshwater and Yarmouth Water, Hoylake and West Kirby Water, Poole Water, and West Lulworth Water, ordered to be brought in by Baron Henry De Worms and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 250.]

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Nolan, Bill to amend the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Nolan, Mr. James O'Brien, Mr. Foley, and Mr. Sheehy.
  Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 252.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Police Force Enfranchisement * (77); County Courts Consolidation * (78).

MALTA—CHANGES IN THE CON-STITUTION.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked Her-Majesty's Government, Whether they
682
can give any information with regard to the time when the proposed Constitutional changes in the Government of Malta will be carried into effect; and whether such information will be in possession of the Maltese constituencies before the next General Election? He asked for this information understanding that the Council of Government had been dissolved.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, it was the fact that the Council of Government in Malta had been dissolved; and, inasmuch as it was necessary that a period of three months should elapse before the election of the new Council, it had been thought desirable to take steps, as soon as possible, to enable the constituencies of Malta to consider the new scheme of proposed Constitutional changes. He should hope to be able to lay Papers on the subject, including a despatch written to the Governor of Malta describing the proposed changes, on the Table in the course of a day or two, and they would be in the possession of the constituencies of Malta in ample time before the next election took place.

ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC—THE NEW HEBRIDES.
  EXPLANATION.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) read me a little lecture last night on my imprudence in not following my own rule by refusing to answer a Question where no Notice has been given. I fully admit that his lecture was entirely deserved, because it turns out that I confessed to sins which I had not committed. It appears that my impression was correct. There is a war ship of the Royal Navy at the New Hebrides, and there has been for some time.

  COUNTY COURTS CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate the County Court Acts —Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 78.)
  House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.