Sitting of 10 May 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Town Holdings; Mr. Crilly disch.; Dr. Fox added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sheriff's (Consolidation) * [262].
Second Reading—Deeds of Arrangement Registration [231].
Committee—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) [217] [Fifth Night]—n.v.; First Offenders (recomm.) [189]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension Act (1886) Amendment * [230], and passed.
Considered as amended—Colonial Service (Pensions) * [251].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (Gas) * [259]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 3) * [260]; Local Government (No. 2) * [201].

PARLIAMENT—PETITIONS—FICTITIOUS SIGNATURES.
MR. WEBSTER: I have a Petition to present from the Anti-Wine and Coal Dues Association, East St. Pancras, against the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues. I regret to inform the House that although I am. cognizant of the fact that a large number of the signature are bonâ fide
1450
signatures of the inhabitants of that district of London, yet I have received information, which I consider to be trustworthy, that a great many of these signatures are forgeries, and that some of them purport to be the signatures of persons who, as far as I can find out, do not exist. I, therefore, present the Petition, having given that information to the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The best course will be for the hon. Member to present the Petition, and it can then be referred to the Committee now sitting to inquire into the presentation of several other Petitions.
MR. W. LOWTHER: I wish to know, Sir, whether the Petition can go before the Committee if it is not presented, and in the possession of the House? I did not understand you to order it to lie on the Table.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will bring it up, it will be ordered to lie on the Table, and it will be for the Committee of the House now sitting to deal with it.
Petition brought up, and ordered to lie on the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  WAR OFFICE—AEROSTATIC BALLOONS —INVENTIONS OF WILLIAM HOWSON.
  MR. SHIRLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether some valuable inventions and recommendations in regard to aerostatic balloons have been communicated to the War Office by one William Howson, of Mexborough, in Yorkshire; whether the War Office has availed itself of some of such inventions and recommendations without rewarding or recognizing the services of the said William Howson, and would ho state what negotiations have taken place between the War Office and the said William Howson; whether he is aware that the said William Howson professes to be the possessor of a valuable secret for destroying armies, and has offered to make experiments at Woolwich for the purpose of testing the value of his secret; and, whether the War Office will cause such experiments to be made?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)
  1451
  (who replied) said: Mr. Howson's proposals have been before the War Office since 1878; but they have been considered impracticable, and have been declined. The War Office has not availed itself of any of Mr. Howson's recommendations, nor has there been any connection between his proposals and certain balloon experiments which have taken place.

  ALLOTMENTS EXTENSION ACT, 1882—"POORS CLOSE" CHARITY, GREAT EASTON.
  MR. J. ELLIS(for Mr. CHANNING)(Northampton, E.) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following facts—that in the village of Great Easton, in the County of Leicester, a statutory notice, to put into operation the Allotments Extension Act of 1882, has been duly served on the administrators of the "Poors Close" Charity; that the said "Poors Close" is about three-fourths of a mile from the village, has a good road to it, and is more conveniently situated than the present allotments, and that the latter are insufficient for the acquirements of the village; that the overseers have refused to put "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882," in force, and that, though notified that the Charity Commissioners have been appealed to in the matter, they re-let the field for another year; and, whether, taking all the circumstances into consideration, ho will direct any steps to be taken to compel the administrators of the "Poors Close," at Great Easton, to carry out the Allotments Extension Act?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The Charity Commissioners were informed by a correspondent writing on behalf of certain applicants for allotments on the 21st of April and 2nd instant to the effect stated in the first three paragraphs of the Question. The Commissioners have already called upon the overseers, who appear to administer the Charity, to take steps to carry out the Allotments Extension Act, 1882, and are making inquiries. Pending the result of those inquiries, the Commissioners are unable to say whether any proceedings on their part to compel the overseers to carry out the Act will be necessary. The overseers
  1452
  have expressed to the Secretary of State the opinion that the land is quite unsuitable for allotments.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE, 1887—"SPECIFIC SUBJECTS."
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education. What other specific subjects other than algebra, Euclid and mensuration, mechanics, chemistry, physics, animal physiology, botany, principles of agriculture, Latin, French, and domestic economy are sanctioned by the Department, as entitling a school to a grant of 4.s. in respect of each passed scholar; why book-keeping, commercial correspondence, epistolary style, English composition, commercial history, commercial geography, shorthand, or German are not enumerated; how many schools in Great Britain provided last year a graduated scheme of teaching approved by the Inspector in any of such last-named subjects, and which of them; how many scholars in Great Britain were submitted last year for examination in each such subject, and how many earned the grant; and, if it is possible to add these commercial subjects, or some of them, to the list given in Clause 15 of the Education Code of 1887, with a view to directing the studies of the senior classes of Board Schools into a practical channel?
  THE VICE PEESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): If my hon. Friend will refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. E. Ellis) on the 17th of March he will see what specific subjects other than those mentioned in Article 15 of the Code have, from time to time, been sanctioned by the Department. They include book-keeping and German; while English composition and epistolary style form part of the ordinary course of instruction in the upper Standards, and commercial history and geography are necessarily taught whenever history and geography are taken as class subjects. I have not the detailed information asked for in the third and fourth parts of the Question; but I can assure my hon. Friond that any suitable scheme of teaching subjects important to those likely to be engaged in commerce will meet with every encouragement from the Department, and if such subjects were adopted to any extent the results would

  1453
  be separately tabulated in the General Report.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—HOUSE VISITATION BY SCHOOL MANAGERS.
  MR. BEACHasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether an Inspector of Schools has a right to make a manager of a school go to every house in the parish (rich and poor), ask the number of persons in each house, and send a Report thereof to him; and whether (as the case is) the grant due to Newtown Schools, Hants, can be refused to be paid by Government until the order of the Inspector (with regard to the above) has been carried out?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): No, Sir; an Inspector has no such right as that suggested. But an Inspector is bound to require the managers of a school who claim a special grant under Article 3 to establish that claim by reasonable evidence. In this case I am informed by the Inspector that the correspondent actually agreed to supply the "list of inhabited houses with the number of souls in each." But when the correspondent afterwards objected, the Inspector at once accepted the half-yearly statement of the Guardians, upon which he understood the Returns in previous years to have been based.

  WAR OFFICE—HORSE ARTILLERY REDUCTION —FIELD ARTILLERY GUNS.
  GENERAL ERASERasked the Secretary of State for War, In view of the statement in his letter to the signatories of the appeal against the Horse Artillery reductions, quoted from the distinguished General's Minute, in discrediting the value of that arm, that—
  "At present the bulk of Horse Artillery is armed with a 9-pounder, a very poor gun; whilst our Field Batteries are armed with an admirable 13-pounder, or the old pattern 10-pounder, a good but unwieldy gun;"
  and, if it is the fact that there are 53 batteries of Field Artillery also armed with a 9-pounder gun, and that there are only 13 batteries out of the whole number of 84 batteries of Field Artillery armed with the 13-pounder, and 15 batteries with the 16-pounder?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: My hon. and gallant Friend's figures are substantially cor-
  1454
  rect; but I am glad to say that rapid progress is being made in re-armament during the present financial year. The new guns for two more batteries are now being prepared for issue to Field Artillery; those for 10 more will follow at the rate of two per month, and for nine more the guns will be ready during the year. My hon. and gallant Friend should also remember that 42 of the batteries named by him are in India, and their armament rests with the Indian Government.

  INDIA—INDIAN FAMINE INSURANCE FUND.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is a fact, as reported in The Bengalee of Calcutta, that the Indian Famine Insurance Fund has practically ceased to exist, as it has been devoted to the Burmese War; and, if so, what steps are being taken by the Indian Government to meet the eventuality of famine in India in future?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): It is not true that the Famine Insurance Fund has been devoted to the Burmese War; but there is no surplus for 1887–8 out of which the Famine Grant can be paid. The Government of India seeks to protect the country against famine by completing the protective system of railways as rapidly as financial considerations will allow.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—NON-DELIVERY OF SUBPŒNAS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that Mr. Hazley, Postmaster of Blackrock, County Dublin, has recently had a law-suit with a Mr. Edward Little, cab-owner of Blackrock; and, if it is a fact that subpoenas issued by Mr. Little's Counsel, Mr. Gerald Byrne, to witnesses for the defence, were posted on Thursday, April 14th, and instead of being delivered the same day were not delivered until the following Saturday afternoon, too late for the witnesses to attend the Court, whereby Mr. Hazley won the case; and, if so, what is the explanation of the delay, and who is responsible for keeping the summonses in the post office so long undelivered?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (who replied) said: The Irish Government have no knowledge of the law-suit alluded to. "With regard to the latter portion of the Question, I have already stated, in reply to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane) on Friday last, that in the case of any alleged irregularities on the part of Post Office officials, the proper course is for the person feeling aggrieved to communicate with the Postmaster General.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ALLEGED MUTILATION OF CATTLE AT RATHFARNHAM.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the case of the recently reported outrage at Rathfarnham, County Dublin, whereby six of Colonel Rowley's cattle had their tails cut off, it was discovered, upon examination, that only one of the beasts had lost its tail; if, upon further examination, the missing tail was found in the farmyard, where it had dropped off, eaten away by disease; and, whether this outrage forms one of those enumerated in the last Return of Irish crime laid upon the Table of the House, or will form one of those enumerated in the next?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, it was reported to the police at Rathfarnham, on 27th ultimo, that the tail of one cow—not six as mentioned in the Question, Colonel Rowley having but two—had been cut off the previous night. The police at once visited the place, and on examination found that the loss of the tail had been occasioned through disease. No outrage having occurred the case does not, and will not, appear in any Return.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SUB-INSPECTOR SUMMERVILLE AND CONSTABLE WARD.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Sub-Inspector Summerville and Constable Ward, released on bail after a verdict of wilful murder, have resumed police duty; are they since in the receipt of pay, or what is their position; and, do
  1456
  the Government intend to prosecute them?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the officer and constable are on leave of absence, and not on duty. They are both in receipt of pay, and will return to duty on the expiration of their leave, as the Attorney General sees no grounds to advise a prosecution.

  COURT OF BANKRUPTCY—(IRELAND).
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the existing staff of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland (with two exceptions) from the Judges downwards are Protestants, and if no Catholic has received any promotion, place, or employment in that Court for several years; and, whether the Government will now make an exception to the rule so rigidly observed, and appoint a Catholic to the office of official assignee now vacant?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I do not know the religion of the officials of the staff of the Court, and I should not feel justified in making inquiries on the subject. Neither the Government, nor any Member of the Government, have anything to do with the appointment of official assignees, or any other official of the Court.

  OPEN-AIR MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— ACTION OF THE POLICE.
  MR. PECTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether an intended open air meeting in Sancroft Street was prevented on Sunday, 8th May, by a body of police, who occupied the ground before the conductors of the meeting arrived; whether this was done by the orders of the Chief Commissioner of Police; whether the prohibition of the meeting has the approval of the Secretary of State; whether the conductors of the meeting proceeded from Sancroft Street to the Thames Embankment, and carried out their programme without any disturbance of the peace; and, whether the prohibition of the meeting was due to any exceptional reasons, which can be stated to the House, or is it intended to be repeated in the case of all

  1457
  open-air meetings called by Socialists and their supporters?
  MR. JAMES STUAETalso asked, Whether the police prevented the holding of a public meeting at Sancroft Street, Kennington Road, London, on Sunday last; and, what wore the instructions under which they acted in dealing with this proposed meeting?
  MR. PICKERSGILLalso asked, Whether the Home Secretary is aware that for a long time past meetings have been held in Sancroft Street, Kennington Road; whether, on Sunday last, the police prevented a meeting being held there; and, if so, upon what grounds and by what authority; and, whether two persons, named respectively Chapman and Kemp, were arrested by the police; and, if so, by what authority and for what offence in each case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that, as is usual in cases of an anticipated breach of the peace, the police were on the ground at the time and place in question in double patrols, but that no attempt was made to hold a meeting. It appears that a certain number of persons did go from Sancroft Street to the Embankment; but that they did not hold any meeting. I am informed that meeting's have been held in Sancroft Street on Sundays for about six months past. Chapman and Kemp were arrested on a warrant issued on the 4th of May by a magistrate sitting at Lambeth Police Court, charging them, I believe, with unlawful assembly. I have before informed the House that the police have no special instructions to prevent Socialist meetings as such; and I am assured that no such instructions, nor any special instructions at all, were given in the case of last Sunday's meeting. The Secretary of State gave no orders at all concerning it.
  MR. PICTONasked, whether the hon. and learned Member would inform the House what reason the Commissioner of Police had to anticipate any breach of the peace; and, whether any breach of the peace had occurred at previous meetings on the same spot?
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I can only suppose that the Commissioner of
  1458
  Police anticipated a breach of the peace for good reasons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can inform the House when he proposes to introduce the Employers' Liability Bill?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: I have already informed the House that the Secretary of State will introduce this Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. The provisions of the Bill have been remodelled in many particulars since my last answer; and it has, therefore, been again in the hands of the draftsman, who has returned it to-day.

  DUKE OF CONNAUGHT'S LEAVE BILL —CHARGE ON INDIAN REVENUE.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any additional charge, directly or indirectly, will be imposed upon the Revenues of India in the event of the Duke of Connaught's Leave Bill becoming law?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): There will be no additional charge, direct or indirect, on the Revenues of India in the event of the Duke of Connaught's Leave Bill becoming law and being acted on. There will, on the contrary, be an appreciable saving in salaries.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE VOLUNTEER FORCE—THE NEW REGULATIONS.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the issue of the new Regulations has been delayed until half of the Volunteer year has elapsed; and. what will be the position of those Corps who have commenced their musketry course on the old system?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War desires me to say that ho is personally responsible for the delay in issuing the new Volunteer Regulations. He kept

  1459
  them back partly at the request of some hon. Friends behind him, in order that he might have time to consider what modifications could be introduced to meet their objections, and the changes he proposed had also to obtain the approval of the Treasury.

  LAW AND POLICE—SEVERE SENTENCE AT THE MARYLEBONE POLICE COURT.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as stated in The Daily News of Saturday, that on the previous day at the Marylebone Police Court, a woman named Fowles, who had acted as cook in a gentleman's family for over two years, and had hitherto borne a good character, was sentenced by the magistrate, Mr. Cooke, to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for giving a poor woman named Box, a halfpenny bundle of wood, a beetroot, and a basin of soup, the property of her master; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case, with a view, if possible, of mitigating the severity of the sentence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: It appears that the newspaper account of this case incompletely states the facts. The magistrate was satisfied that the particular theft charged, though small in itself, was not the first of which the prisoner had been guilty, but was one of a systematic series of small robberies from her master. Under these circumstances, the Secretary of State sees no reason to interfere with the sentence.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS ON THE MARQUESS OF LANDSDOWNE'S ESTATE AT LUGGACURRAN.
  MR. W. A MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the police at Borris-in-Ossory, Queen's County, have torn down all the posters announcing a collection in aid of the Marquess of Lansdowne's evicted tenants at Lugga-curran; and, if so, whether he will inform the House, by virtue of what Act of Parliament the police took this course?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I regret that I have been unable to obtain the necessary reply for this Question as it is down without Notice, and involves a local reference.

  LAW AND POLICE—OUTRAGE AT A MEETING AT AUDLEM, CHESHIRE.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the account in the papers of an attempt, on May 6th, to break up a meeting, in favour of Home Rule, in Audlem, in the Eddesbury Division of Cheshire, to the following effect:—
  "That, while Mr. Walter M'Laren, M.P., was speaking, some person placed under the door behind the platform a lighted fusee, attached to a bag containing cayenne pepper and other strong smelling powder. That the room soon became full of dense and poisonous smoke, and every one was nearly suffocated, while it had a most injurious effect on their throats and lungs;"
  whether he will offer a reward for the discovery of the perpetrators of this outrage; and, if they are discovered, whether he will prosecute them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State's attention has not been called, otherwise than by the hon. Member's Question, to the newspaper report referred to. The preservation of order, and the detection of crime in the County of Cheshire are duties incumbent upon the County Police. The Secretary of State has discontinued the practice of offering rewards.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—EXCLUSION FROM THE POLICE COURTS.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the police were justified in excluding from the Lambeth Police Court, on Monday, 2nd May, J. Kemp, G. Morris, W. Mahony, G. Chapman, T. Griffiths, Mrs. Andrews, and Miss Andrews, who went for the purpose of hearing Blackwell's examination; and, whether the police are to exclude at their discretion any persons who conduct themselves properly?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The police magistrate reports that on Monday, the 2nd of May, the Court was crowded from its first opening. The officer who was on duty at the door reports that, though many persons wore of necessity kept waiting in the lobby until others left the Court, no application for admission was made to him by any persons expressing themselves interested in Blackwell's case.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to say that in all cases of summary prosecution the police court was not an open court, to which any members of the public had a right of access?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: That is a question that had better be addressed to the Attorney General.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE STAMP ACTS LEGISLATION.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is his intention to consider the question of the Stamp Acts, with the view of introducing a measure next Session to deal with the anomalies now existing in these Acts?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): It is somewhat early to ask me what measures I shall see my way to introduce next Session; but certainly it would be my desire, so far as it is possible to do so, to review the many anomalies that exist in the Stamp Acts, and I will give my best attention to the subject, including the point which I know the hon. Member is interested in with regard to stamps upon leases, and other documents of that description.

  OPEN-AIR MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— PROPOSED MEETING AT KENNINGTON—CRITICISM OF THE POLICE.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the chief officer at the Kennington Road Police Station is correctly reported as having given the following reply to a request, on the part of the promoters of a public meeting, for protection, on Sunday last—namely—
  1462
  "If you assemble here and attract opposition, I shall hold you responsible, and deal with you. If you hold no meeting there can be no disturbance; if you do hold one, and opposition arrives, I shall hold you responsible for attracting that opposition, and I shall have you moved on pretty quickly;"
  and, if this report is accurate, will he state under what authority the police were acting on this occasion?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART WORTLEY)(who replied) said: I am informed by the Chief Commissioner of Police that Superintendent Brennan, who was chief officer on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, states that he made no such reply, nor used any words to that effect, and that the report is entirely incorrect.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— CAPTAIN SHAW, R.M.
  DR. TANNERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Which of the two men, named respectively Daniel Falvey and Timothy Buckley, was charged before the Aghadillane Bench of Magistrates, on the night of the 27th of April, with attacking a dwelling house, was proved to have had in his possession a revolver; who were the witnesses that proved Buckley, the man in question, drew the said revolver upon an old man named Twomey, the owner of the dwelling house attacked, and his two young daughters; whether the licence to carry arms was granted to Falvey in his capacity of an employé of the Cork Landlords' Defence Union; whether Daniel Falvey has undergone a confinement for the term of five years at the Upton Reformatory, County Cork, for house breaking; whether Captain Stokes, R.M., admitted that, from the evidence given, he was both satisfied and sorry that the emergency employés had committed the offence with which they were charged; what reasons have been given by Captain Stokes, R.M., for disagreeing with his follow magistrate, and in marking "No rule" in the case; and, whether Captain Stokes will be one of the magistrates to whom it is proposed to give discretionary power under the Crimes Act, 1887?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University), in reply, said, he had already stated, in reply to the same Question, that neither of the men had a revolver

  1463
  in his possession. No reference was made at the hearing of the case to the fact that Falvey had undergone a term of confinement in Upton Reformatory for house breaking; and if it had been made he would have considered it most objectionable. Captain Stokes did not make the admission referred to in the Question; and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would not discuss the Criminal Law Amendment Bill with the ton. Member.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked, what exactly was the provocation Falvey had received?
  MR. HOLMESsaid, he had already answered the Question on the Paper; and if any further information was wanted on the subject, a Question should be put on the Paper.
  DR. TANNER: I will call attention to it in another form.

  AUSTRALIA (NORTH-WEST COAST)— DISASTER AT SEA—THE PEARL, FISHING FLEET.
  MR. JOICEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can give any information as to the recent disaster to the Pearl Fishing Fleet on the North West Coast of Australia, and state the number of British lives lost; and whether, considering the number of British sailors employed in the fleet whoso families are anxious about them, he will endeavour to ascertain and publish the names of those whose lives have been lost by the disaster?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I have not yet received any details with regard to this disaster; but it appears from telegrams that some of the boats supposed to have been lost have escaped. The pearling vessels are, for the most part, manned by Natives, and it is hoped that there wore very few White men lost. The Governor will be desired, by telegraph, to give the names as far as known.

  NEW GUINEA—THE COLONY OF QUEENSLAND,
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government has come to any understanding with the Colony of Queensland as to the future administra-
  1464
  tion of New Guinea; and, if so, what stipulations have been made on behalf of the Native inhabitants of the Protected Territory?
  THE SECRETARY OFSTATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The scheme proposed by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the government of New Guinea has been laid before the Delegates at the Colonial Conference, and approved by them; but the sanction of the different Colonial Governments and Legislatures is, of course, required. Till communications have been made to those Governments it is not desirable to enter into details; but I can assure the hon. Member that full protection has been given to Native interests.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS—CONSTRUCTION OF ENGINES.
  MR. BARBOURasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true, as stated in The Standard of Friday last, that when a vessel is laid down in any of the Dockyards, it has been decided to obtain from the chief of the steam branch of such Dockyard an estimate for the engines, to consider such estimate in connection with the tenders from private firms, and, should the comparison be favourable to the official estimate, that the engines will then be constructed in the Dockyard; and, what security the House will have that the engines will be actually constructed and supplied within the terms of the estimates so submitted to the Admiralty?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The statement is only true so far as it refers to the machinery of two gunboats of the Rattler class about to be built at Devon-port. The officers of the engineering staff of the Admiralty and Dockyards will be responsible that the engines are constructed and supplied within the terms of the estimates.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—POSTAL SERVICE IN INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  DR. CLARKasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the case that letters from Loch Lochy to Inverness, a distance of 15 miles, take 55 hours in delivery, and whether letters from Invergarry to Achnacarry, a distance of eight miles, are carried 360

  1465
  miles before delivery; and, whether he intends to adopt measures to remedy the defective postal communication along the line of the Caledonian Canal, and to directly connect Inverness, Invergarry, and Fort William?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES)THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University), in reply, said, it would be necessary to make inquiries before he could give any satisfactory reply to the Question of the hon. Member, and he should give directions for such inquiry to be made.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—SERVICE BETWEEN PERTH, ABERDEEN, AND KEITH.
  DR. CLARKasked the Postmaster General, The average weight of the mails from Perth to the North by the 12.40 a.m. train, and from Aberdeen to Keith by the 3.35 a.m. train, also the sums paid for the conveyance of each of those mails?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, he would call for an account if the hon. Member desired it; but without taking an account he was unable to answer the Question. The remuneration for the conveyance of this particular mail from Perth to the North was included in the total payment under the contract with the Railway Company.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN STOKES, R.M.
  DR. TANNERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the conduct of Captain Stokes, R.M., on the Bench of Magistrates at Ballyvourney, at the last Monthly Sessions; whether, in the case of William Connell, junior, a process server and assistant of Mr. Hegarty, J.P., versus John Casey, the language made use of by Captain Stokes was as reported, "the old gentleman Casey appears to have been a fighting old rascal;" whether the evidence tendered by an Irish speaking witness in behalf of Casey was stated in and before the Court to have been improperly interpreted; whether Leghare, the interpreter, was a fellow bailiff of the complainants; whether Leghare was filled subsequently by the same Bench for assaulting an aged man by striking him violently with a whip; whether the Go-
  1466
  vernment will recommend that Casey's fine be remitted; whether Michael Connell, a brother of the process server, was in the employment of Mr. Hegarty; whether he was fined by Captain Stokes and Mr. Hegarty on the day in question for deliberately throwing stones at and severely injuring a horse, the property of the honorary secretary of the National League; and, what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES), in reply, said, no rule was entered in this case. Captain Stokes, R.M., did not use the expression attributed to him. His answer to paragraphs five and eight was "yes;" but subject to the qualification that the assault was not an aggravated one. He had no information with regard to paragraph seven. The Government did not intend to take any steps in the matter.

  SCOTLAND—THE CROFTERS COMMISSION— VISIT TO SOLITOTE, ISLE OF SKYE.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, If the following report of the visit of the Crofters Commission to the township of Solitote in The Scotsman of 6th May was correct:—
  "Without exception, Solitote is the most miserable place which the Commissioners have yet visited, the patches of ground which the tenants cultivate vary in size from three roods to two acres. The township has no right of grazing. There are 17 families in the township and only three cows, and two of these are fed with grass purchased from the tenants of Conista, while the third picks up its living at the roadside…. The visit of the Commission caused a great deal of excitement in the township; the people crowded out to meet them, and followed them from croft to croft with long tales of their grievances. At various points of the inspection the Commissioners were met by groups of men, who urged them to give them more land. They pointed to the green fields of the sheep farms lying around, and asked why they should he huddled together while so much of the best land in Skye was under sheep. It was in vain that the Commissioners pointed out that under the present Act they had no power to create new crofts, even if the land were available;"
  and, whether the Government will introduce a measure to empower the Crofters Commissioners to form new holdings or townships to relieve such congested townships as Solitote?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Question which the hon. Member has put to mo varies slightly from the Notice I received. It is quite impossible on short notice to express an opinion on a newspaper report regarding the condition of a distant part of the Highlands; but assuming the report is correct, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to introduce a measure inconsistent with the provisions of an Act deliberately passed in a recent Session.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CHILDERS: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could now say what the Business will be on Thursday?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W.H. SMITH): It is proposed to take the Duke of Connaught's Leave Bill first on Thursday, and the Motion for the Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates second, and then Supply, in the hope of getting the Jubilee Vote, and after that will come the Inland Revenue Bill.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked what Business would be taken on Friday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can hardly expect that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill will be through Committee before then.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked why the additional Estimate, ordered to be printed on the 20th of April, and promised at the commencement of this week, and to be taken on Thursday, was not yet in the hands of Members?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, that had it not been for the rather late Sitting last night the Estimate would have been in the hands of Members that morning; but it would be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning. It was simple, and would be easily understood.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, should the amount proposed to be voted for the celebration of the service in Westminster Abbey exceed the sum of £2,000, I shall move that it be reduced to that sum. I wish also to ask you, Sir, whether, in the event of a Motion being made to go into Committee of Supply in order to vote an additional Civil Service Esti-
  1468
  mate, the Rule which allows a Motion to be made before you leave the Chair on first going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates will be applicable?
  MR. SPEAKER: The ordinary Rule will apply. Motions may be made on the Question, "That I now leave the Chair."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had understood the Speaker to rule that if a Motion were made on such an occasion the discussion could not be continued beyond one Sitting.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was in error. He had never ruled that a debate could not be continued if not concluded on the first day that the Motion was made that he should leave the Chair.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he presumed that Supply not being the first Order on Thursday, Motions on going into Committee would be taken in the same way?
  MR. SPEAKER: Certainly; that is the case.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked when it was intended to take the Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it would be taken on Monday.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.
  In reply to Sir JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he wished to arrange, if possible, for the consideration of this measure at a time which would be most convenient to hon. Members. He understood that it was the desire of hon. Gentlemen to discuss its provisions on going into Committee. The Government would endeavour to arrange for a time convenient to hon. Members; and until such arrangement was made the Bill would not be brought forward.

  DUKE OF CONNAUGHT'S LEAVE BILL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, Whether it was necessary to proceed with the Bill granting leave to the Duke of Connaught to attend the Jubilee festivities, as it was only necessary for the Duke to give up his command, and then at the end of the celebrations it would be quite in the

  1469
  power of the Executive to re-appoint him at any moment?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, it would be more consistent with the order and regularity of Public Business, when it was intended that His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught should obtain leave to come home, that the legal obstacles, the legislative obstacles, which existed to that course should be removed by Parliament itself. It would be giving the go-by to Parliament if they adopted the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman, without having previously taken the opinion of Parliament on the subject.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, there had appeared on the Paper that morning, for the first time a Motion standing in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury in regard to Private Bill Legislation as follows:—
  "That a Committee of Five Members of this House be appointed, to join with a Committee of The Lords, to consider the best means of relieving Parliament from the duties now discharged by Private Bill Committees, and making other provisions in lieu thereof."
  Had that Notice anything to do with the Home Rule Question; and was it the intention of the Government to take the Motion that night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, certainly not. If it was the desire of hon. Members to discuss this question, an opportunity would be given them to do so.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MR. MOLLOY AND "THE TIMES "—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. MOLLOY: I wish to make, Sir, a personal explanation. I desire to read the copy of a letter which I have addressed to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India—
  "9th May, 1887.
  "The Right Hon. Viscount Cross, G.C.B., Chairman of the Royal Commission on Education.
  "My Lord,—I have the honour to inform you of the resignation of my seat at the Board of the Royal Commission on Education. In deference to my Colleagues upon that Commission, I feel it necessary to state the causes of such resignation. In 1885, when the Conservative Government was in close alliance
  1470
  with the Irish Nationalist Party, I was named one of the Royal Commissioners on Education by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the then Conservative Government. Previous to this recommendation a number of scandalous anonymous libels had been published against the Irish Nationalist Members of the House of Commons. Since the advent to power of the present Conservative Administration, composed of the same gentlemen as those of the previous one, the same anonymous libels have been reproduced by The Times newspaper and issued as a pamphlet. This pamphlet has been used and circulated, as I believe, for political purposes by Members of the present Government. When the Government was challenged in a late debate to afford an opportunity for refuting these infamous accusations by the appointment of a Committee of the House, the Government, although publishing and using such charges, declined to afford this facility. Since this refusal Members of the Government continue to use and circulate these libels in the same manner and for the same purpose as hitherto. Under these circumstances, my self-respect compels mo to resign my position as a Member of the Royal Commission on Education, since it was conferred upon me on the recommendation of these very Gentlemen whose conduct I have above described. I have the honour to be, my Lord, your obedient servant,
  "BERNARD C. MOLLOY."

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACTS (IRELAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he saw by the Paper that this Bill was blocked by both the hon. Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) and the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell), two supporters of the Government; and he wished to know did the Government intend to take any action in reference thereto?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was responsible for the government of Ireland, was the only Minister who could answer the question; and he would see what the views of the right hon. Gentleman were on the subject.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 217.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th May.].
  [FIFTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PRELIMINARY INQUIRY.
  Clause 1 (Inquiry by order of Attorney General).
  MR. T. M. HEALY, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 18, after "enactments," to insert—
  "Viz. sections eleven, twelve, and thirteen of the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter ninety-three,"
  said: I desire to know from the Government exactly what it is they propose to do by means of this sub-section. We sometimes hear a great deal about the difficulty of making progress with this measure; but I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that in the half-a-dozen lines of which the sub-section consists the Government have imported three entire sections of an Act of Parliament of enormous length, which, if published—as they ought to be published—in the Bill, would take up four or five pages of the measure. My complaint is that in this way they are endeavouring to hoodwink the Committee. The Amendment I propose is a very trifling alteration indeed; but I wish to show what the sections are which the Government are endeavouring to import into the measure. I do not say that I approve of the importation of these sections at all; and all I desire is that we should know whether these are the sections which the Government propose to import, or whether they are not? The sections of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act which I propose to embody are—first, Section 11, which is a section of considerable length, and which relates to the person against whom an information has been laid. It provides that—
  "In all cases of indictable crimes and offences where an information that any person has committed the same shall have been taken in writing or on oath, the justice shall issue a warrant to arrest and bring such person before him or some other justice of the same county to answer to the complaint made in the information—and which warrant may be issued and executed on a Sunday or any other day—or if he should think that the course of justice would be thereby sufficiently answered it should be lawful for him, instead of issuing such warrant, to issue a summons, in the first instance, to such person requiring him to appear and answer to the said complaint."
  I object altogether to the justices having power to hold an inquiry on a Sunday, and of thus desecrating the Sabbath; and I hope to have the
  1472
  support of hon. Members who, although they may have been scheduled for corrupt practices in connection with elections, nevertheless warmly protest against anything like the desecration of the Sabbath. It does appear to me that the power given to the justices to issue warrants in this manner at their discretion is not sufficiently defined. I think the Government ought to let us know in what cases they think a summons should be issued, and in what cases a warrant should be issued. It is a monstrous thing to give the magistrates illimitable power of issuing warrants up and down the country without strictly defining their powers. This section was never intended to apply to these cases, but was simply intended to apply to indictable offences; and yet the Government propose to apply this clause to ordinary cases, other than indictable offences. They propose to apply provisions, intended to meet the case of indictable offences, to ordinary cases, which can be dealt with summarily, and which include very small offences indeed. The section goes on to say—
  "But nothing herein contained shall prevent any justice from issuing a warrant for the arrest of such person at any time before or after the time mentioned in such summons for his appearance."
  That is certainly a very nice provision. A man may be arrested at any time; he may be taken out of his bed to answer any questions that may be put to him without a summons; he may be arrested at any time, and although a summons may have been issued to compel his appearance, he may be arrested in spite of that summons. The summons may require him to appear before the magistrates at 3 o'clock in the afternoon; but under a warrant he may be arrested at midnight. We are attacked by the newspapers for opposing the provisions of this Bill. Personally I pay very little attention to what ignorant men, who do not know what they are talking about, may say. I maintain that when we are endeavouring to expose these monstrous and iniquitous proceedings in the House of Commons we ought to receive some reasonable consideration, instead of being met by Motions—" That the Question be now put." The section goes on to say—
  "And whenever such person shall afterwards appear or be brought before any such justice he

  1473
  shall proceed according to the provisions hereinafter contained."
  That section of the clause deals altogether with indictable offences. Conspiracy is an indictable offence. If men combine against a landlord for a reduction of rent that is conspiracy; and a magistrate would be justified in taking them out of their beds at any time by means of a warrant, and without a summons. The 2nd section of the clause relates to cases of summary jurisdiction. It says—
  "In all cases of summary jurisdiction the justice may issue his summons direct to such person, requiring him to appear in person in answer to the complaint, and it shall not he necessary that such justice shall he the justice, or one of the justices, by whom the complaint shall he afterwards heard and determined."
  I defy anybody to make sense of that, yet it is proposed that this provision is to be put in force by ignorant military and naval officers, who know nothing whatever about the law, and will have to work out the meaning of the clause in their own intelligent brains.
  "It shall not he necessary that such justice shall be the justice, or one of the justices, by whom the complaint shall be afterwards heard and determined."
  In the next place, any justice may, in spite of the issue of a summons, issue a warrant for the appearance of any man without reference to the requirements of the Resident Magistrate; and the section goes on to say—
  "And in all cases of offences where such person shall not appear at the required time and place, and it shall he proved on oath, either that he was personally served with such summons, or that he is keeping out of the way of such service, the justice may issue a warrant to arrest and bring such person before him, or some other justice of the same county, to answer to the said complaint."
  It then goes on to provide—
  "That the warrant or summons is to be signed, but not in blank, and that the summons or warrant may run into an adjoining county."
  The next clause is No. 12, which relates to the service of the summons. I do not know how far the Government intend to import Section 12 into this Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): We do not import it at all.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is Clause 13 imported?
  MR. HOLMES: A portion of it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should be glad to learn what portion of that sec-
  1474
  tion the Government propose to include in this clause. The sub-section now under discussion states that the enactments relating to the compelling of the attendance before a justice shall apply as if they were re-enacted. Section 11 provides what the justices are to do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he does not propose to include Section 12; but when I put a question to him in reference to Section 13 he said that he proposes to include a portion of it. How is a justice to know what portion of that section is included? I myself may presume to have some small knowledge of the law, and I confess that I cannot tell by reading this section what part of it the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to incorporate in the present Bill. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us exactly what it is that he proposes, and how much of the section it is intended to include. I am quite ready to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so that the Committee may hear what he has to say.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be necessary, in the first instance, for the hon. and learned Member to make a Motion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I make the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 18, after "enactments." insert "viz., sections eleven, twelve, and thirteen of the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter ninety-three."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOLMES: At this stage of the Committee it is, perhaps, too much to express surprise at anything that may happen; but I must protest against the speech of the hon. and learned Member, which surprises me more than I had believed I could be surprised. I believe that the Bill pretty clearly expresses, in the 2nd sub-section of the clause, what is proposed to be done. It provides that—
  "The enactments relating to the compelling of the attendance of a witness before a justice, and to a witness attending before a justice and required to give evidence concerning the matter of an information, or a complaint for an indictable offence, shall apply for the purposes of this section as if they were re-enacted herein, and in terms made applicable thereto."

  1475
  I think that is sufficiently definite and clear for such purposes, and yet, that being so, I am asked by the hon. and learned Member, who is himself acquainted, I presume, with the interpretation of statutes, and who certainly ought to be acquainted with the provisions of such a statute as the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, to explain the meaning of these clauses of that Act. Now, according to my recollection, there is not a line in the 11th section of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act which deals in any way with enforcing the attendance of witnesses. The 1lth section deals with an entirely different matter. It deals with the compelling of a person against whom a criminal charge is made—which is wholly different from compelling a witness—to attend. If the hon. and learned Member looks at the marginal note attached to that section, he will find that it is described as "process to enforce appearance in cases of indictable offences." All these provisions refer to the case of a person against whom a charge is made, and it provides the means by which such person may be compelled to come into Court. There is nothing whatever in the section about compelling the attendance of a witness. The section which compels the attendance of a witness is the 13th section. If the hon. and learned Member will look at that section, he will find that the marginal note is that "the justice may force witnesses to attend and give evidence." The clause is divided into different sub-sections. The first provides for the issue of a summons for the attendance of a witness to give evidence in a case which may be disposed of by summary jurisdiction. In that particular case a summons is issued to the witness, and he is naturally obliged to attend in compliance with the summons; if he does not attend, a warrant may then be issued for the purpose of bringing the witness before the Justice of the Peace in the same way as in the case of an indictable offence. The summons must be issued in the first instance; but if that summons is disobeyed, then the person disobeying it may be arrested forthwith. The section goes on to specify what persons shall be competent witnesses, and to provide that witnesses may be examined on oath, and the information or complaint is required to be in writing or on oath. The refusal or
  1476
  neglect of any person summoned to appear at the time and place appointed by such summons justifies the justice in bringing him before the Court under a warrant. A further sub-section deals with witnesses who are contumacious, and provides that a witness declining to answer a question or refusing to take the oath may be committed by the justice or justices for any period not exceeding eight days. He may then be brought up again, and if he still declines to answer proper questions or to be sworn, he may be further imprisoned, provided that no such imprisonment shall, in any case of summary jurisdiction, exceed one month in the whole. What we propose to do in this section is to incorporate those provisions. Our attention, however, has been called to the circumstance that the clause, as it has been drafted, might make the procedure applicable to a summons or warrant for an indictable offence applicable also to a person summoned for summary jurisdiction, and for the purpose of removing that doubt it will be necessary to insert an Amendment. The House must bear in mind that nothing is proposed in this clause which is new in our ordinary procedure in regard to criminal cases; and, under these circumstances, the Government cannot possibly accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because, if they did, they would be incorporating in the Bill a number of provisions which can have no possible application to the particular cases in question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The only object of my Amendment was to define clearly the powers which the Government propose to take. I have no desire by this Amendment to extend the powers which the Government themselves propose to take. I will, therefore, only ask them to accept my Amendment so far as Section 13 is concerned. Quo ad Section 13, I only wish the Government to define this part of the clause. Nevertheless, I maintain that my construction of the section is perfectly correct, and, if necessary, I could point out reasons for arriving at that conclusion. What I am afraid of is that no sooner will this Act be put into operation than the magistrates will take advantage of the powers given under Section 11, although the Government say that Section 11 is not to apply at all. If that is the case, I

  1477
  think the Government ought to make it clear that Section 11 does not apply. Are they prepared to do that? No, Sir; the Government will do nothing of the kind; and there, I am afraid, is the dodge of the whole matter. I dispute the sincerity of the Government. The provisions of this Bill will be put in force by magistrates who are as incapable of reading an Act of Parliament as a body of horse marines. If I, who may be presumed to understand the law, fail to see that the section may not be made to apply, how much more likely would a horse marine be to jump at the same conclusion? Section 11 provides that—
  "Whenever information shall be given to any justice that any person has committed, or is suspected to have committed, any treason, felony, misdemeanour, or other offence within the limits of the jurisdiction of such justice, it shall be lawful for such justice to receive such information or complaint, and to proceed in respect of the same."
  By this provision a man may be sent to gaol if he is suspected of having committed any offence whatever; and the clause provides that such person shall be punishable either by indictment or upon a summary conviction, and then, if any person has committed, or is suspected to have committed, any crime or offence, certain things are to happen which are intended to secure his appearance before a Court. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to give his attention to Subsection 1 of Section 10, which states—
  "Whenever it is intended that a summons only shall be issued to require the attendance of any person, the information or complaint may be made either with or without oath, in writing or not, according as the justice may see fit."
  That is to say, that such information or complaint may be made even when an offence has been committed. But what is an offence? A police constable may be altogether ignorant of the law; and, therefore, what I want the Government to do is to define what the sections of this Act are which they are taking power to incorporate. To say that Section 10 will not apply is, I maintain, treating the matter in an illusory manner, unless it is specifically provided that it shall not apply. It says that whenever a summons is issued certain things are to happen. Whenever it is intended that a warrant shall be issued the information or complaint is to be in
  1478
  writing, and then there is a further provision in regard to summary proceedings. It is in that way that Section 10 will come in, and the marginal note to the section is "process to enforce appearance." The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that no power is taken to incorporate Section 11, and, if so, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have the goodness to declare that in the clause itself in express terms. What I am afraid of is that this is an attempt to take powers by a side wind. It will be impossible to do that if the Government consent to accept my Amendment, and therefore I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take my Amendment quo ad every portion of the sections he desires to incorporate I hope the Committee will receive a full explanation as to what it is Her Majesty's Government really propose to do.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: As I understand this subsection, it provides that the law in regard to the attendance of a witness before the justices in an indictable offence shall be extended to the case of witnesses summoned under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. I presume that when the law of Ireland requires a witness to attend to be examined in an indictable offence he is ordinarily examined in public, and I gather that the object of this extension of the law is to provide that the same powers should be conferred upon the Resident Magistrate in the case of the examination of a witness in connection with an offence. Now we are told that the examination is to be in private. I do not say that that is wrong, but it does not appear on the face of the clause. One would rather suppose that the Resident Magistrate is to sit in open court to examine the witness who is to be summoned, and that the law is to be the same in regard to his attendance as if it were an indictable offence. I think we ought to have some explanation from the Government as to how the secrecy under such circumstances is to be brought about. We are quite aware that the examination before the Sheriff in Scotland, at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal, is a private examination.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is re-opening a question which has already been discussed, and which is not

  1479
  pertinent to the Amendment now before the Committee.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: May I be allowed to point out that last night the words which commenced this sub-section—namely, "the enactments"—were carried. Now, I do not find in the Bill any definition of those words. What is meant by "the enactments?" Are the words intended to apply to some specific enactments? The words contained in the 2nd clause, which refer to the Whiteboy Acts, are definite. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has given an explanation which, if it formed part of the Bill itself, would be perfectly satisfactory, except that a certain portion of it seems to be inconsistent with the wording of the clause. I do not quite see that "the enactments" are limited by any means of construction which are known to an ordinary Court, and this Act is to guide a Court of very limited experience. I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) seems to think that that is a very absurd position to take. I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon for confusing the Attorney Generals together. It was the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) who seemed to consider that that was an absurd construction to put upon the matter; but, nevertheless, I venture to maintain that it is the clear wording of the section as it stands. It applies to a witness attending before a justice, and being required to give evidence concerning the matter of an information or complaint for an indictable offence; and, therefore, it rules the words "the enactments," which are to apply to witnesses giving evidence against some person charged with the commission of a crime? They are to be "the enactments concerning the examination of witnesses." Now, I am not fully conversant with what Irish enactments are, but some of them I know are on all fours with English enactments, and I am of opinion that this provision would be absolutely inconsistent with the procedure which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has told us is meant to be pursued. I would suggest that the Committee ought not to let the words "the enactments," be left as they are without any definition, without knowing
  1480
  what it is that the Government really desire to do, and only with an explanation of what may be in the mind of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. We must remember that the mind of the Attorney General is no part of the Statute, and what the Committee require is that there should be a clear definition of the provisions of the Statute which the Government propose to enforce.
  MR. HOLMES: Although the words appear to me to be perfectly plain, and have been used in former Statutes, yet. if it is thought that it would make the meaning more clear, I have no objection whatever to correct the section in this way—
  "The enactments contained in the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act of 1851 in Section 13 relating to the attendance of witnesses before justices."
  I do not think that anything will be done by that Amendment which has not been done before; but I am willing to insert it, although, in the clause as it has been drawn, I have followed the words of the former Act.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  After the word "enactments," to in3ert "contained in Section 13 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland; Act of 1851 relating to the attendance of witnesses before justices."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "for an indictable offence," which appear in the fourth line of this sub-section. The sub-section would then read in this way—
  "The enactments relating to the compelling of the attendance of a witness before a justice, and to a witness attending before a justice and required to give evidence concerning the matter of an information or complaint, shall apply for the purposes of this section as if they wore re-enacted herein, and in terms made applicable thereto."
  That I apprehend would be taken distributively.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The Amendment which follows this, and which is in the name of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, deals with that matter.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I am quite aware of that, and I think that the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are a fair attempt to meet the engagement he gave the other day; but I wish to call attention to the word "complaint," because a complaint is not an information. The word "complaint" is applied where a case is dealt with summarily. The question I wish to raise is, whether the power of compelling the witness to give evidence before a Court whore the case is being heard should be applied in all its nakedness to a witness who is not known to be able, but is merely suspected of being able, to give evidence. In other words, I desire to secure that there should be no power to compel a man to attend by arrest who would attend if summoned. I wish the Committee to understand clearly what sort of oath has to be made before a summary process is put in force to compel the attendance of a witness on an indictable offence. Its contents would simply be that there is a probability that such person would not attend to give evidence without being compelled to do so. There are two forms of compulsion—one by means of physical force, and another by moral compulsion; and what I complain of here is that, as the clause now stands, any man would be liable to be arrested at any hour of the night without the magistrate having been informed on oath by the constable, or the person laying the information, that there was any suspicion that he would levant if he got a summons. Therefore, I think it is better not to apply in all its nakedness the extreme power of the Petty Sessions Act to the case of offences which may be tried summarily by a magistrate. I admit that the object of any Amendment is fairly met by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the oath which is required to be taken before the issue of a warrant is not exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman specifies in his description.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member, that, at the present moment, there is no Motion before the Committee. Does the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland move the Amendment which is on the Paper in his name?
  MR. HOLMES: Yes.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 21, after "offence," insert "or concerning the matter of an information in respect of an offence punishable upon summary conviction, as the case may be."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I doubt whether the Amendment which has been moved by the Attorney General for Ireland quite covers the undertaking which was given by the hon. and learned Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster). The Government undertook that in applying the provisions of the Potty Sessions (Ireland) Act to proceedings under this clause, the provisions of that Act which relate to indictable offences only should be applied, and that the clauses of the Potty Sessions Act which relate to summary jurisdiction shall only apply when summary offences are under consideration, I do not think that the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland entirely carries out that undertaking, although, no doubt, it does partially. Perhaps I may be permitted to point out that it deals with two sets of enactments. In the first place, to the enactments relating to compelling the attendance of a witness before a justice. That is one set of enactments. But the point I wish to raise is this—that Section 13 of the Petty Sessions Act applies to two different things. It applies, in the first place, to the process of compelling the attendance of a witness before a justice; and, in the second place, to the process by which a witness attending before a justice may be compelled to give evidence. If the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is agreed to, the clause will run in this way—
  "The enactments relating to the compelling of the attendance of a witness before a justice, and to a witness attending before a justice and required to give evidence concerning the matter of an information or complaint for an indictable offence, or concerning the matter of an information in respect of an offence punishable upon summary conviction, as the case may be, shall apply for the purposes of this section as if they were re-enacted herein, and in terms made applicable thereto."
  It is perfectly plain that the words the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to insert are only qualified

  1483
  by the words "a witness attending before a justice and required to give evidence." I think it ought to be made perfectly clear that in the case of summary offences to be dealt with under this clause only that part of Section 13 of the Petty Sessions Act which relates to summary offences is to apply; but if the section is permitted to stand as it is at present, it will empower a magistrate to issue a warrant to compel the attendance of a witness in the first instance, although the offence may be one which is simply punishable summarily.
  MR. HOLMES: I do not think the hon. and learned Member is correct. It so happens that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for England and myself made independent drafts of the proposed Amendment, and there was only one unimportant word of difference between us. I do not think there can be any serious doubt as to the Amendment having the meaning intended to be given to it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I contend with great respect that the Amendment can only be read in one manner, and that is the manner which I have pointed out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England are agreed upon the point; but this is a matter which we wish to have made perfectly clear, and I will ask if the Government are willing to accept an Amendment in the form of a Proviso to provide that Section 13 is to be applied only in the case of indictable offences where the procedure relates to indictable offences, and in the case of summary offences to such offences only as those to which summary jurisdiction applies?
  THE ATTOENEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I am afraid that if we were to add a Proviso such as that which the hon. Gentleman has suggested we should make a double enactment which would stultify the clause as it stands. The governing words of this section are—
  "The enactments relating to the compelling of a witness before a justice, and to a witness attending before a justice and required to give evidence concerning the matter of an information or complaint for an indictable offence."
  Then come in the words proposed to be
  1484
  inserted by my right hon. and learned Friend—
  "or concerning the matter of an information in respect of an offence punishable upon summary conviction, as the case may be."
  Consequently, two alternatives are put, and then comes the distribution of the words "as the case may be." We have endeavoured to draft the Amendment to the best of our ability, and, in my opinion, I do not think it necessary to change the phraseology we have proposed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I trust that neither the right hon. and hon. and learned Gentlemen for a moment think I intend to impute any desire on their part to act unfairly; but this appears to me to be altogether a question of grammar. The word "concerning" in the sense in which it is used in the clause is an adjective, and together with the second word "concerning" proposed to be introduced into the section, it must, according to the contention of the Government, be read in conjunction with the word "enactments." Now, I maintain that it is to be read only in connection with the word "evidence." As the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland puts the matter, the word "concerning" is made to apply to another word two lines off—namely, the second word in the sub-section; whereas the grammatical construction shows that it applies to the word immediately preceding it—namely, "evidence." I have no desire to press the matter unduly, but I would ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to give some attention to the point I have raised. It is to be regretted that we have not the exact words on the Paper, which would show how the clause would stand with this Amendment inserted in it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says he is satisfied, and in that case I presume there is no getting over the matter. I would further ask him, when he sees a reprint of the Bill and has the whole clause in type, to examine it carefully, and I think he will come to a different conclusion.
  MR. WALLACE: I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that he should substitute the words "which concern" instead of "concerning." They may appear to be clumsy, but I think they would be perfectly unambiguous.
  Question, "That those words be there substituted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have now to move an Amendment by which I seek to provide that every person committed for contempt under the enactments referred to in the sub-section shall be treated as a first-class misdemeanant. It appears to me that the Government ought to consent to make the punishment of persons sent to prison for disobedience to this sub-section as light as possible. Of course, the Government may say that the offence may be of a serious character; but, after all, the punishment for it cannot amount to more than mere detention, and my point is that, even under the most favourable condition of the prison regulations, detention in gaol is a very severe discipline indeed. We very often complain that we are detained in this House at considerable inconvenience; but what must be the condition of a person in confinement in a prison who is locked up in his cell every night at 6 o'clock, and kept there until 8 o'clock in a morning. That, I believe, applies to the case of a first-class misdemeanant, and will, I think, be held to be sufficiently severe, whereas, if a man is not treated as a first-class misdemeanant, he is liable to be locked up in a cell in solitary confinement for 23 out of the 24 hours. I maintain that this is a most inhuman punishment. A man is locked up in a cell not bigger than that table, and is confined there for 23 hours out of the 24, and it must also be borne in mind that the great majority of persons who will be dealt with under this Act will be farmers and others who have been accustomed all their lives to the open air. Surely this would be a most monstrous punishment, even if the prisoners should not be compelled to sleep on a plank bed. Mr. Forster's Act was a humane Act compared what this is likely to be, and even under the stringency of the provisions of that Act several persons went out of their mind, and others died. A good many suffered from a variety of diseases; their eyes and teeth got bad, and all those parts of the body which it is necessary to keep in motion in order to maintain physical vigour went out of order. As a matter of fact, hundreds of persons suffered more or less from
  1486
  the restraint imposed upon them, and the punishment inflicted upon them was beyond all comprehension. More than 500 of the men who were imprisoned under that Act left the prison with their lives practically shortened by eight or 10 years. I contend that, under this section, it is a most unreasonable thing, when you are confining men for the mere purpose of detention, to keep them in prison for an inordinate length of time, and to subject them to unnecessary cruelty and hardship. I trust the Government will see their way to the acceptance of my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 23, after the word "thereto," to insert the words "with this exception, that every person committed for contempt, under the said enactments, shall be treated as a first class misdemeanant."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I wish to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that however severe the punishment may be, even if it comes up to the highly-coloured description he has given of it, it will be in the power of the prisoner, under this section, at any time to relieve himself from the pains and penalties of the clause by answering certain questions. And, further, the maximum time during which a witness can be imprisoned, without being again brought up and again asked questions, is eight days. With regard to the general policy of the Government on this question, we do not consider that this is a proper occasion on which to alter the law as it applies now to witnesses who refuse to answer. There is no reason why a witness detained under this clause should receive either better or worse treatment than a witness committed for contempt under the ordinary law. Therefore, taking our stand on a broad principle, the Government feel compelled to disagree both with this Amendment and with the next one which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, and which proposes to provide that no person, for an offence against these enactments, shall be sentenced to more than seven days' imprisonment.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I am very sorry to hear

  1487
  the proposition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that there is no difference in the case of a witness brought up under a preliminary inquiry, and of a witness committed for contempt under the ordinary law. The right hon. Gentleman says that the two cases stand on the same footing. I think that there is an essential difference. In the case of a public inquiry in the ordinary administration of the law, the witness has the protection of being advised as to whether he is compelled to answer a question. It must be remembered that a legal adviser has a right to be present in the one case, but that he is expressly precluded from being present in the other. You may have an ignorant peasant brought up as a witness who knows nothing of the law or of the effect of the questions put to him, and he may foolishly refuse to answer. It is quite probable that if the questions had been put in public he would have been advised to answer them, although, on the other hand, questions might be put to him in a secret inquiry which he would be advised not to answer if they were put to him in public. If he refuses to answer, he is liable to be sent to prison. Now, I am not going to raise any question as to general prison treatment, although I believe that the prison treatment in this country is atrociously severe; and when the Government have time to attend to other matters than those which concern Ireland, they may, perhaps, look into that question. I do not see why a man who refuses to answer a question ought to be punished in the same way as a prisoner who has committed a crime. The right hon. Gentleman says that he may, by answering the question put to him, get out of prison. That argument will apply to the ease of the Rev. Mr. Cox, or to any other prisoner who refuses on conscientious grounds to comply with the laws. To take an Irish farmer from his outdoor life, and to confine him in a gaol because he refuses to answer some questions, is, in all conscience, punishment enough for the offence he has committed without subjecting him to all the rigours of the imprisonment inflicted upon a criminal. To subject him to the same punishment as a man who has committed a crime, and to treat him as a criminal prisoner, is, I think, unneces-
  1488
  sarily harsh and severe. I believe there are hon. Members here who know what such a terrible ordeal is, and I do not see why the Government should not make this decent concession which the hon. and learned Member for North Longford asks for. I would, therefore, ask the Government to reconsider the matter. All they can want is to get at the evidence, and I believe they would be able to get at it quite as well by administering the law humanely, as they can by administering it cruelly.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: As far as the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolver-hampton goes, I am quite ready to answer it fairly, although I am bound to refuse the concession which he asserts to be a matter of decency. The right hon. Gentleman has argued from premisses which are altogether founded on a mistake. He has stated, in the first place, that the object with which a witness is called is to get evidence, and that, in the event of his refusal to answer the questions put to him, he may be committed for contempt of Court. He says that it is a great protection to the witness to have the proceedings in such a case conducted in an open Court, where the witness can have the benefit of legal advice. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have been present last night when we were discussing a similar point. Both in England and Ireland justices who may be taking preliminary evidence with regard to a sworn information before them have the power of excluding everybody from the Court, and to treat the inquiry as a private one. I believe that that practice does prevail when it is found to be necessary for the proper administration of justice.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether ho is aware of a single instance in which that course has been taken?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Most unquestionably; at the time of the Fenian trials it was constantly done, and I could mention other cases in which it has been done to my own knowledge. It has been the law of England for 40 years, and of Ireland since 1851. I merely mention the fact; I am not discussing the policy of the matter. Therefore there is no weight to be attached to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the course of procedure

  1489
  when evidence is taken in an open Court. The right hon. Gentleman has said that at the present moment a witness who is called upon to give evidence, and who may be an unwilling witness, is entitled to have a counsel or solicitor.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: That rule applies to inquiries held in open Court.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: That is not so. I have paid great attention to everything the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I would ask him to be sure of his law before he lays it down. At the present moment, the only person in Court who is entitled to have a counsel or solicitor is the prisoner. A witness who may be called upon to give evidence may be an unwilling witness brought into Court by summons or even by means of a warrant, but he is not entitled to be represented either by counsel or by a solicitor. The only person entitled to have counsel or a solicitor is the prisoner. Therefore, the second public protection which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to does not exist at the present moment. Then the right hon. Gentleman states that, as the law now stands, evidence cannot be extracted from an unwilling witness or by a process of law, except where some person is in charge. Now, the inquiry proposed by this Bill, and by the Act of 1882—namely, a preliminary inquiry—already exists, and may be entered into before a person is charged, and many Members of the House have expressed a wish that the power of holding a preliminary inquiry should become part of the permanent law of the land. Assuming that it is right to have a preliminary inquiry, and that it is proper to have a preliminary inquiry although no person may be charged, what difference ought we to make in the way in which a witness is to be treated and punished if he refuses to answer the question put to him whether a person is charged or not? In both cases the proceedings would probably be on sworn information that a crime had been committed. The only difference would be that in the one case a person is charged, whereas in the other it is alleged that some person or persons unknown have been guilty of crime. In the interest of a real desire to get at the truth, which I am certain actuates the right hon. Gentleman as much as anybody else, what difference
  1490
  ought there to be in the treatment of an unwilling witness? We submit that, inasmuch as we have assimilated the proceedings in the case of indictable offences to those which are punishable by summary conviction, the usual consequences should follow in both cases, and that the change ought to make no difference in regard to the obligations of a witness to answer a question or the punishment of an unwilling or recalcitrant witness. I submit to the Committee that the three grounds which have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman are entirely without foundation, if he will allow me respectfully to say so—that the deduction which he draws is one which ought not to be drawn, and that this is certainly not the time to alter the law either as regards the punishment or the treatment of a witness.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I am very much surprised that the Government should stick by this portion of the clause. As a matter of fact, my breath has been almost taken away by the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster). Why does he not apply the torture at once; why does he not go over to Lambeth and get a thumb-screw and a rack, and all the old instruments of torture, and apply them? The proposal of the Government is absolutely monstrous. Under the last Coercion Act, I think I am right in saying that a recalcitrant witness was treated as a first-class misdemeanant, and, although he was retained in solitary confinement for a certain number of hours out of the 24, he was allowed to have his own bed, and, if he chose, to have his own doctor. It will be altogether different under the provisions of this Bill. There may be a number of men put in prison, but they will not be allowed to associate or come together, or take exercise together, but will be compelled, as far as I understand the provisions of the Bill, to take their exercise with ordinary criminals, or, at least, with untried criminals. I remember what occurred to myself when I was in prison under similar circumstances. I was compelled to take an hour's exercise at G o'clock in the morning, and on one occasion I was required at a couple of paces' distance to follow a little boy who had been brought in the day before. That child was one mass of sores, from

  1491
  head to foot; his eyes were almost melting out of his head, his shoes were slipping from his feet, and he displayed one mass of sores all over his body. I was compelled to walk round the prison yard behind him until I became sick, and absolutely fell to the ground. I protested over and over again, but my protests were unheeded until I fell down, and the doctor was sent for to revive me. Under the prison regulations, I was compelled to take my exercise daily with every criminal who might have been brought in the night before, and for what? The hon. and learned Attorney General may say that crime must have been committed. Had I committed a crime? No, Sir; I had not, and yet this is the punishment I received, and what I presume the Government now propose to award again. In my case they drew no distinction between a man who had committed no crime and the most hardened criminal. I had refused to disclose to the magistrate what I was absolutely ignorant of. I contend that treatment of that sort is simply monstrous. When I read the Amendment I thought the Government would have no hesitation in acceding to it, for I felt it would be an act of barbarity to retain the clause in its present shape. As a matter of fact, it is going back to the tortures of olden times, which were resorted to to compel prisoners to answer the questions put to them at the inquisition. It is nothing short of torture to attempt to compel men to disclose facts of which they know nothing whatever, as it was in my case. I desire to make no appeal whatever to the Government, because I believe that it would be in vain. I am sure that they and their officials in Ireland revel in acts of injustice just as swine revel in mire. The Government, in order to support the acts of their officials in Ireland, reduce themselves to the same condition. I will not, therefore, indulge in the language of appeal, and demean myself or humble myself before them in order to entreat them to do that which in no civilized country ought to be refused. I said to myself when I read the Amendment—"Surely the Government do not propose to adhere to their proposition." I have not been present during the whole of this discussion, but knowing as I do the temper of the men who superintend these prisons, and the way in which Acts of Parliament are
  1492
  used for the persecution of political opponents instead of the prevention of crime, I have very little expectation that a Tory Government will accept such an Amendment as this. I am personally too indignant to argue the matter in anything like good temper. If the Government adhere to a clause of this nature, I say that they will make themselves part and parcel of this system of government, and of that system of officialism in Ireland, which is a disgrace to any civilized country.
  MR. HENY H. FOWLER: I only desire to point out that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General misunderstood and misinterpreted me. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that I based my argument on three points, the principal one of which was that the proposed inquiry differs from any other inquiry in being held in private instead of in open Court, He added that I ought to know that at the present moment there exists a power to exclude the public during a preliminary investigation. Now, I have the honour to be a Justice of the Peace, and, acting in that capacity, I never knew a case in which a preliminary inquiry was conducted in private and the witnesses ordered out of Court. The hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to certain cases in connection with Fenianism; but I have no recollection of there having been any deviation from the ordinary course, unless under those exceptional circumstances. With regard to my second point, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General somewhat twisted what I said. I did not speak as a lawyer, but as a Member of the House of Commons; and he says that I spoke of the right of a witness not to be left entirely without protection, but to have a legal adviser present. I never dreamt of saying anything of the kind; but I said that there were always present representatives of persons who were accused, who took care that no improper questions were put. The Committee have been asked to insert a clause to provide that witnesses called up for examination in secret should have the right of having a legal adviser present; but the Committee refused to accept that proposition. The hon. and learned Attorney General has said that it would do no harm if the clause were extended to crimes in England. I candidly confess to the hon. and

  1493
  learned Attorney General that I am one of those who think that that might be so, if it were extended to crimes, but to crimes only, and not to political offences. I believe that in such cases a great manycrimes, which now go undiscovered, would be detected. What I protest against in regard to this clause is, that not only accused persons, but witnesses who are asked to give evidence against them will be subjected to a much more severe punishment than their offence warrants.
  MR. T. FRY: I hope the Government will reconsider the matter. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is precisely the answer which might have been given 300 years ago, in the time of Queen Mary, when persons were sent to prison because they declined to answer questions which were put to them, and were subjected to forture in an attempt to make them answer. There are often questions which it is impossible for a man to answer without incriminating himself or his nearest friends. I think the Amendment is one which ought to commend itself to every Member of the House, and I really believe that it would do so, if hon. Members on the opposite Benches did not believe that they wore bound to follow their Party. We are now told that when the witnesses answer the questions put to them they will be set free. But that was precisely what was said by the inquisitors centuries ago. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider the attitude they have taken with regard to the Amendment.
  MR. O'HEA: I feel bound to protest against the cold-blooded and brutal attitude which Her Majesty's Government have taken up. There are hon. Members of this House who know from previous experience in Ireland what prison discipline is, and the brutality which is exercised towards prisoners in the Irish gaols. It ought to be borne in mind that the prisoners to whom this Amendment applies are not malefactors who have been found guilty, but simply men summoned to give evidence, and various motives may prompt and actuate them in regard to the evidence sought to be extorted from them in a preliminary inquiry. It might so happen that some of my hon. Friends and myself might be called upon to give
  1494
  evidence as to the action of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and his connection with the Plan of Campaign. Personally, I should certainly refuse to give any evidence, good, bad, or indifferent. I should undoubtedly be prepared to endure all the horrors and the tortures Her Majesty's Government might be prepared to inflict upon me, for a refusal to give evidence in such a case and under such circumstances. I trust that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. Hon. Members will then see how much of the milk of human kindness is to be found in the breasts of Her Majesty's Ministers and of hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite Benches, as well as their Friends and Colleagues, the Liberal Unionists, who sit on these Benches.
  MR. FINLAY: One would imagine that the hon. Member who has just spoken thinks that the proposition of the Government is to treat those who refuse to answer questions in an inquiry of this kind as if they were the greatest criminals and were to be treated in some way different from those who refuse to answer questions in any other inquiry. Nothing can be more absolutely opposed to the actual state of the facts. As I understand the clause, it merely means that a witness who refuses to answer questions in an inquiry of this kind will be treated in precisely the same way as would a witness who refuses to answer questions when anyone is accused may now be treated. Can it be seriously alleged that it is a less heinous offence, or an offence of a different complexion, for a witness to refuse to answer in an inquiry of this kind than for a witness to refuse to answer when there is a person accused? It may be a question whether an inquiry of this kind should be held at all; but we are not discussing that issue now, and a great deal of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) seemed to be levelled at the general question whether it is desirable to hold inquiries of this kind with regard to a particular kind of offence. That is not the question we are discussing; but it is whether we are to treat witnesses who are contumacious in these inquiries in any way different from that which is applicable to other cases. To my mind, that is a question which does not admit of argu-

  1495
  ment. With regard to the general question of prison discipline, no doubt there is a great deal to be said. There is a great deal in our prison discipline which certainly demands reform, and I would cordially join in any movement to relax severities which are wholly uncalled for; but I think it would be improper for the House, in passing a section to provide for inquiries of this kind, to say that witnesses who are contumacious shall be put on a different platform from other witnesses who are contumacious.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness has done complete justice, or, indeed, anything like justice, to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). I am sorry, also, that my hon. and learned Friend's first intervention in Committee should be to resist an attempt to mitigate some of the possible inconveniences to individuals from the operation of this exceptional legislation. The first thing to bear in mind is that the Government profess to justify the introduction of this process, which is one hitherto unknown to the English law, by a reference to the analogy of the Scotch law. But we have heard from Scotch lawyers that the practice there only applies to voluntary witnesses. This is one difference which my hon. and learned Friend has overlooked. The witness in Scotland can claim the right of having the depositions returned to him, or, in other words, of destroying a record of the evidence. We are now dealing with a witness who does not come forward voluntarily. He may be a witness who is under suspicion himself, and yet he is obliged to answer, oven although his answer should criminate himself, any questions relating to the offence as to which the inquiry is being held. It seems to me that my hon. and learned Friend has lost sight of this further difference between this enactment and the provisions of the Scotch law—the almost obsolete and unused provisions of the Scotch law in regard to which this Bill is supposed to afford some analogy. That difference is this—that under the Scotch system the witness is brought before the Sheriff, at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal, who is the person who collects the data on which the wit-
  1496
  ness is examined. The magistrate is not an active party to the inquiry; he is rather there for the protection of the witness; whereas, under this Bill, the magistrate will be a party to the inquiry, which will assume an inquisitorial character rather than that of a protection. I think that my hon. and learned Friend, when he spoke with that high tone of severity which he adopts of the fearful act of contumacy committed by a man who refuses to give evidence, might have borne these facts in mind, as well as the fact that the principle is unknown to the general law of England. You will also be dealing with a class of witnesses who do not know and cannot be expected to know what the law is. You propose to deprive the witness of the protecting influence of Judge, counsel, or solicitor, and it may be reasonably expected that a man without any desire to commit contumacy, as my hon. and learned Friend calls it, may honestly refuse to answer the questions put to him, believing that he is justified in so refusing. This is altogether a different offence from that of frustrating a criminal inquiry, and I think there is clear ground for drawing a distinction between those who are and those who are not voluntary witnesses.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I do not rise to add anything to the statement of the case of the Government which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend near me, and by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). I rise simply for the purpose of correcting an error in the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir Charles Russell) on a matter of law. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the procedure introduced into this Bill is unknown to the law of England. In that he is in error, as he will find, if he will refer to the Explosives Act.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I said the general law of England. I was perfectly aware of that particular Act dealing with a particular crime.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite accept that; but the phrase used by the hon. and learned Gentleman was that it was unknown to the law of England.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I meant the general law.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to point out that it is now part of the law of England, having been made so two years ago. Eight hon. Gentlemen opposite introduced the principle into their Explosives Act of 1882, and if it is a gross injustice, let them get out of their own Act.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has discovered one particular English Act containing a procedure of this kind, and it is the Explosives Act, which has regard to offences that are only in a high degree criminal, but are anti-social and almost unnatural, going beyond the lines of human nature and beyond the lines of human crime. It is from an Act of this kind that this method of procedure is taken; and it is now to be adopted in a case in which a man is called upon to give evidence as to whether someone has induced some other person to take or not to take a particular part, or to deal or not to deal with some other person. That is the parallel the right hon. Gentleman has given, and the advantage he has derived from the study of the English law.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman appeal's to be of opinion that one ought to protect a witness in a case of ordinary crime, but to leave him unprotected if the crime is serious. I do not understand that what the right hon. Gentleman said is relevant to the discussion at all. If witnesses deserve to be protected at all, they deserve to be protected always. It is wholly irrelevant to say that the Act cited dealt with what the right hon. Gentleman called anti-social crimes. The ground taken by the right hon. Gentleman differs from the ground taken by the two preceding speakers. They rested their objections on the ground that witnesses were unprotected. I believe that witnesses would be as amply protected as they are under the existing law. The right hon. Gentleman has taken new ground in speaking not of the protection of witnesses, but of the character of the crime, which will be dealt with at a later stage of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman can limit the clause if he likes, but do not let him drag in now an argument which is wholly irrelevant.
  MR. MOLLOY: I contend that the confusion is with the
  1498
  right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who never seems able to see any point, however plainly it may be put before him, and who, in this ease, fails to see the difference between a severity of treatment which may be meted out to a person guilty of a very small offence, and an obdurate witness under the Explosives Act, who is properly deemed guilty of an anti-social crime. The right hon. Gentleman has missed that point altogether, and the whole of his indignation falls to the ground, as it did on a previous occasion two or three nights ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) made one mistake in the observations he addressed to the Committee. He spoke of the hon. and learned Unionist Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) as having spoken for the first time on this Bill. I beg to inform him that the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke on another occasion, although his speech was not in the cause of humanity, but to prop up the Government in carrying out the measure now before the Committee in the severest possible manner. The hon. and learned Unionist Member informed the Committee that, although ho supports this clause, he is prepared to consider the question hereafter under certain conditions. He, therefore, fully admits the impropriety of this severe treatment. All he says is—"Why introduce a new law now?" I will tell him why. It is because the Government are introducing a now law altogether, to which, I maintain, we have no right to tack on a condition of circumstances which does not attach to the action of the Courts and the action of justice in the law as it now stands in regard to other matters. The hon. and learned Attorney General for England asked why there should be any difference in the treatment of a witness who comes under the action of the law as it exists now and another witness who will come under the action of this measure? The reason is very simple. Under the laws that exist now the examination of a witness is in public. The witness is, therefore, protected; and it is childish to compare the secret inquiry now proposed to be held before a Justice of the Peace with an inquiry in open Court under present circumstances. The Government are introducing a system of secret inquisitorial examination,

  1499
  and they are putting extraordinary powers in the hands of men who have had no judicial training, and who are totally unfit to exercise powers one-half as strong as those. Let me give an instance of an inquisitorial examination which may take place today. It will take place under the auspices of a man thoroughly trained in the traditions and customs of the law, whereas, when this Bill is passed, those secret inquiries will take place before a half-pay military or naval officer with no judicial training whatever. If the power were placed in the hands of an ordinary non-official man, there might not be the same objection as now exist3, because, in all probability, he would exercise the power placed in his hands justly and fairly. But is there any Member of this House, either on one side or the other, who dares to express an independent opinion, who will say he believes that in one single instance the powers given to a Resident Magistrate under this Bill will be exercised fairly and justly in the case of any unfortunate man who may be brought before him? We know perfectly well, from our past experiences of the manner in which these Resident Magistrates have exercised their power, and in which they are daily exercising that power now, that it is exercised not only for the purpose of punishing criminals, but in many eases for purposes which are highly improper, and would never for a moment receive the sanction of this House. The great probability is, that these Resident Magistrates, when they obtain these powers, will put questions to witnesses which they have no right to put, and which an unfortunate and ignorant peasant brought before them cannot discuss or argue, but which, from a sort of natural instinct, he will decline to answer. Is it humane, then, on the part of the Government to refuse the concession that is now asked? We have heard a good deal of learned language on the subject; but let us get back to the point at which we started. When all the learned language which has been used on the part of the Government is got rid of, it will be seen that the only demand which is made upon them is that a witness sent to prison under this clause shall receive some treatment more humane than that which the Government propose. All the pious indignation which has been used
  1500
  on this occasion on the part of the Government, and which is used nowadays about a dozen times a night, is simply directed against the Amendment. In asking for a little more humanity in the administration of the law, we are simply demanding that these prisoners shall have a little more fresh air than they will get under the clause as it now stands. The whole refusal of the Government, based on high-flown arguments, is directed against that one concession, that the men sent to prison under the clause shall be able to spend two or three hours in the fresh air. As the clause now stands, a man may be sent to prison, perhaps, for refusing to answer a question which never ought to have been put to him, and which he may have been perfectly justified in not answering. He has, however, no means of protecting himself, and when in prison he is to be allowed only an hour and a-half a-day of fresh air. I ask the Committee to imagine what that means in the case of a man in a healthy condition, who has been accustomed to an out-door life, and who finds himself penned up in a cell little bigger than a band-box? All we ask is, that he shall have a little better treatment in order to enable him to endure his imprisonment; and, in imprisoning a man under such circumstances, is it not right that we should give him some small chance of preserving his health and life? Let any one of the pious Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench ask himself this question: What would be his condition if he were compelled to spend three or four months in a small cell, with scarcely any light, no books to read, and only an hour and a-half a-day for exercise in the fresh air, and that only in the courtyard of the prison? In what condition would he find himself at the end of that time? Be it remembered, too, that this treatment is to be meted out to men who have been guilty of no crime or offence themselves, but who simply decline to answer questions which they consider to be unfair. Is this anything more than the re-introduction of the thumb-screw? You are acting on a man's mind in a way which must weaken his mental powers as well as destroy him physically. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that a witness may only have to remain in prison for eight days, and that he can get out then if he consents to answer

  1501
  the questions put to him. It may, however, be taken for granted that the man would act again upon the same principle, and he is more likely to remain in prison for eight months than to come out at the end of eight days. This treatment, therefore, simply amounts to torture. Is it calculated to do the Government any good, or to do good to the cause of justice, law, and order? Is it calculated to raise the Government in the opinion of those Conservative working classes to whom they are as fond of appealing outside this House, when it is said that unfortunate men who have been guilty of no crime, but who, from a feeling of generosity, or it may be folly, refuse to answer questions which probably they were perfectly entitled to refuse to answer, are not to have this small modicum of humanity extended towards them, but they are to be treated in a manner worthy only of the days of the rack and the thumb-screw?
  MR. CLANCY: I cannot help making one observation in regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). We now know the precise extent to which the Liberal Unionists are prepared to go in support of the present Government. Whenever there is a piece of dirty work to be done, or an especially brutal act to be defended, we are sure to find one of the 76 Unionist Members coming in with all the learned eloquence he can command to do it or to defend it. Unlike most of my Colleagues, I have not been in prison myself, but I have acquainted myself, nevertheless, with the treatment to which prisoners under this section will be subjected. What is that treatment? A prisoner is required to get up at 6 o'clock in the morning; he is allowed one hour for exercise; ho is then to go back and scrub his cell, empty the slops, and after that is done, stop inside all day with the exception of an hour for dinner, and then go to bed and stay there until 6 o'clock next morning. He gets six ounces of bread in the morning, and a pint of something like ditch-water. He is provided with 10 or 12 potatoes at dinner, and a piece of meat like cow's ear. This is the humane treatment advocated for untried prisoners by the Liberal Unionist Member for Inverness! And to whom is it to be applied? It is intended to apply to a good many of the
  1502
  Irish priests and respectable farmers and labourers in Ireland. I cannot help congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on the humanity he has displayed in the course of this debate. For some days past we have been wondering what particular functions the right hon. Gentleman has to perform in connection with his duty as Chief Secretary. We now find out that his chief duty here and in Ireland will be to act as Chief Gaoler. His work will be confined to putting men in prison, and treating them there as inhumanly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman says that a man need only be in prison for eight days. I should very much like to see the right hon. Gentleman after undergoing eight days' imprisonment of this nature. But I must remind him that after having been confined in prison for eight day3 there would be nothing to prevent a man from being re-imprisoned if he still refused to answer the questions put to him. As a matter of fact, he might be re-committed again and again for all the days of his life, because we know that this Bill is to last for ever. He says the prisoner can get out, if ho likes, by answering the questions. That reminds me of what Cromwell is asserted to have said, when the Papists complained of the harsh treatment to which they were subjected. They were told—"You have only to turn Protestant and forswear the Mass." It is the argument of the highway robber, who says to his victim that he has only to give up his money to escape with his life. That is practically what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Gaoler of Ireland recommends in this case. I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman throws a great light on the spirit in which this measure will be administered. We have now received the first important indication which has yet been given of the spirit in which the measure has been conceived, and the manner in which it is likely to be carried out. We have to-night had an exhibition of cynical brutality for which I was not prepared, although I was afraid that a good deal of it was likely to be exhibited in the course of this discussion. All I can say is that if this brutality is to be exercised in the administration of this Bill, the Government will produce a good deal more disorder in Ireland than is found to exist there now, and will probably make things much worse

  1503
  than they found them when they entered into Office. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in this matter, is characteristic of all his acts in this House. I do not recollect a single speech of his, or a single answer to a Question put to him in this House, in which he has not betrayed the same spirit—the same indifference to the sufferings of the Irish people, and the same contempt for their opinions and desires. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that his attitude is being closely watched in Ireland, and I believe that not only in Ireland, but in England also, his attitude is condemned.
  MR. PICTON: I am anxious to say a word or two in support of the Amendment. The wickedest vice of this most intolerable Bill is that it is intended to persecute cruelly the Irish people for their loyalty to one another. Who are the witnesses specially aimed at in this clause? I do not think it is, in the main, witnesses who are called in to testify as to murders and real crimes, because there appear to be scarcely any of those kind of crimes committed in Ireland; indeed, they are much fewer than in Great Britain; but the witnesses aimed at are those who happen to possess the confidence of their fellows, and who, in circumstances of great difficulty, have been aggrieved by a cruel system of rack-rent. It is witnesses who know anything of combinations not to pay excessive rents who are specially aimed, at. I am not prepared to say that in some circumstances the reticence of a witness may not be a virtue rather than a vice. In times past, when other unjust laws oppressed the people of this country, it has been so regarded when unjust laws were directed against the combination of labour; it was regarded as a virtue on the part of the oppressed to withhold their testimony against their fellows either under threats or hopes of reward. So, also, I can easily conceive that there may be circumstances in Ireland in which I myself would very much prefer to shut my mouth and resolve to say nothing whatever, rather than gain some little temporary reward or freedom from personal suffering by telling all I knew of the circumstances under which my fellow men had combined. I think it is a great mistake in the relations of the British Government with Ireland that constant attacks should be made upon
  1504
  the loyalty of the Irish people one to another. If Great Britain had only known how to appreciate the faithfulness of the Irish people one to the other in times gone by we might have been a happy and United Kingdom now. Because the Amendment tends to lessen the vice of the Bill I shall most heartily support it. It may be said that the magistrate will have no power of discriminating between one reticent witness and another, but I am not at all inclined to trust to the discretion of any magistrates as to men who ought to be committed to prison. It appears to me that the Resident Magistrates will always have the interests of the landlord class at heart, and that they will regard as a most unpardonable crime any combination against that class. As the Government tell us that this Bill is aimed at crime and not at political combination, I hope they will prove the sincerity of their words by allowing this Amendment to pass.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There is one suggestion I desire to make. I think no man ought to be kept in solitary confinement for more than 20 hours, at any rate, out of the 24. Even the Liberal Unionists will hardly object to that. My object is to give these unfortunate men something like exercise. To restrict people who have been accustomed to farming work and out-door exercise, and to keep them in solitary confinement for 20 hours out of the 24, is a refinement of cruelty which I imagine the Committee will scarcely approve. Surely it is not too much to ask that no man shall be kept in solitary confinement for more than 20 hours a-day. It is absolutely essential that some reasonable amount of exercise should be allowed to men who are placed in these unfortunate circumstances.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURThe whole question of prison regulations will be looked into and considered, and if anything in the nature of harshness or brutality exists we will do our best to cure it. But the Government most distinctly take their stand upon the position which has already been sufficiently explained to the Committee, and they make no difference between witnesses imprisoned under this Act and witnesses imprisoned under the existing law.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I must express my great

  1505
  astonishment that when the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) interferes in this debate it is only for the purpose of encouraging the Government in brutality, and not for the purpose of mitigating the seventy of the Bill. I have listened with astonishment, I may almost say that I have listened with disgust, and with an indignation I can scarcely control, to the arguments and speeches I have heard in support of this clause. I suppose it will be news to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the hon. and learned Member for Inverness to know that this is almost the only country which retains a want of distinction between ordinary offences and political offences. There is nothing in the whole history of Ireland that has left more dark and more bitter memories than the manner in which political prisoners have been treated in Ireland. I have here an extract from the Report of Dr. Macdonald in regard to the treatment of prisoners arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. That gentleman, who was then physician of Mountjoy Prison, states that one prisoner—Thomas Burke—showed undoubted symptoms of insanity; that another named Finigan gave way to paroxysms brought on by confinement; that another named Peony was considered altogether unfit to be subjected to prison discipline; and that a fourth named Burnes was considered unfit to go away from the prison without someone in charge of him. Dr. Macdonald says that he had no doubt that the severe prison discipline had produced these results, and he adds that in some cases there was a probability of the prisoners committing suicide. He, therefore, recommended a relaxation of the prison discipline, especially in regard to untried prisoners. As a matter of fact, the result was that a large number of these men did become insane; and I am speaking within the knowledge of hon. Members around me when I say that more than one of the prisoners met his death by his own hand in consequence of the mental disturbance created by the confinement to which he had been subjected. Martin Carey was driven to insanity by treatment such as the Government propose to enact by this Bill, and Martin Carey found his death in the Liffey. I think it will be found that the leaders of the dynamite con-
  1506
  spiracy are mostly men whose reason has been unhinged, and whose appreciation of right and wrong has been obliterated by the cruelties practised upon them in confinement in Ireland. Insanity has in many cases been the result. There is nothing which an Irishman resents so bitterly as the injustice and cruelty of the treatment he has been subjected to in this way, and yet the hon. and learned Member for Inverness gets up and says that he hopes no distinction will be made between the treatment provided under this and under any other Act of Parliament. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman, in that omniscience of his, know that we have on the Table of this House the Report of a Committee presented this Session on the accommodation in Court-houses for prisoners awaiting trial at the Assizes and Sessions? There has not been a single newspaper in the country which has not taken up that Report and declared that the revelations contained in it are a disgrace to and a blot upon the civilization of the country. The 12 th paragraph of the Report of the Committee is to the effect that it does not seem right to submit prisoners awaiting trial to physical or moral discomfort of any kind, and that it appeared that a largo percentage of prisoners awaiting trial have been subjected for many hours to the severest mental and physical discomfort, such as exposure to damp, and being kept for hours in the dark. Now, that is the Report of a Committee on the treatment of untried prisoners in England. But the hon. and learned Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Finlay), although he says he is willing to vote in favour of reform with regard to the treatment of prisoners in England, is not willing to vote in favour of the small reform which we now ask in the case of persons committed for contempt under this clause. It is trifling with the intelligence of the Committee for the hon. and learned Member to put forward such reasons as he has in his speech on this Amendment. The reason why he will not vote in favour of the Amendment is because Irish political prisoners will get some little benefit by it. I am glad, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman intends to vote in this way, because it will afford an excellent opportunity of bringing the fact before the people of this country, that when we are discuss-

  1507
  ing where barbarity is on one side, and civilization is on the other, the hon. and learned Gentleman allows the weight of his small voice to be heard in favour of the former. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) said that this clause would deal with the peasants of Ireland. I think my hon. and learned Friend here forgot his usual acuteness, because the Bill would deal with a large class of people other than peasants. The clause is meant to work against men who will not dishonour themselves and dishonour their cloth and their country by putting at the mercy of the Government the secrets of a combination which have been intrusted to them through the confidence of their fellow countrymen. I ask what would be thought of this clause, if, under its operation, Father Kelleher, having refused to give evidence with regard to the Plan of Campaign, for instance, were kept for 22 hours in his cell and required to turn his face to the wall every time his excellency the warder came by; if he were compelled to empty the slops in his cell every morning and to be put to all the miserable and shameful degradations which are reserved, in every country but Ireland, for the lowest and most ignorant of mankind! Sir, we shall persevere on this question; I have spoken once upon it and I shall speak upon it again. I am glad to see that the system of gag which the Government are endeavouring to force upon us cannot always be successfully applied to the House of Commons. Is there a man in this Committee who thinks that the treatment of untried prisoners in England is just? Why, it is one of the blots on the civilization of the country. Under the present system it is just as bad to be accused of crime as to be guilty of crime. We go on repeating in our self-complacency that every man is supposed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. But the truth is, that every man from the time that he is taken into custody is supposed to be guilty until he has proved his innocence, and it is this barbarity which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) wants to retain in this Act, and that which the hon. and learned Gentleman above the Gangway, who disgraces the name of Liberal, wishes to help him in retaining. I hope my hon. Friends will discuss this question fully,
  1508
  and bring before the mind of the country the attitude which the Liberal Unionists have taken up with reference to the Amendment.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: So far as the Law in England is concerned, the words "first-class misdemeanants" have ceased to have the moaning which they had some 12 years ago, although it is perfectly true that in some gaols, I presume with the consent of the Commissioners of Prisons, regulations are occasionally made with reference to particular prisoners which are analogous to those which used to be applied to first-class misdemeanants. I think the use of the phrase and the practice with regard to first-class misdemeanants has ceased to exist in England since 1878. I assume that what is meant by the Amendment is what was meant by that phrase in England prior to that time. I will draw the attention of the Committee to what is meant by ordinary imprisonment without any kind of hard labour, unless there is some order made by the authorities of the gaol or by the Commissioners of Prisons to the contrary. On one occasion, a gentleman of fair education who was undergoing this kind of imprisonment had to appear in Court; the present Lord Chief Justice of England was so shocked at the effect of the imprisonment on him that he adjourned the trial and made an order that the prisoner should have a reasonable amount of food and sleep, and access to some literature, so as to relieve the mental strain, at the effects of which he—Lord Coleridge—expressed himself to be somewhat horrified. The first-class misdemeanant used to have access to books, if his friends could supply them, and he used to have food beyond the prison dietary, if his friends had the means to get it for him; but the present first-class misdemeanant is shut out from the whole world. I do not know what the period of solitary confinement is, but certainly it is for 18 hours a-day at the very least. [An hon. MEMBER; 22 hours.] I do not know what the period is. I always try to limit my statement to something incapable of contradiction. It is impossible to conceive anything more horrible than solitary confinement, and I say that the present regulations should be enforced with great care. Because, against whom do you propose to enforce them? Against persons who

  1509
  have refused, as they think honestly, to give information with regard to a combination of tenants, as you call it, for the non-payment of rents which are legally due to their landlords. If the Committee will permit me, I will take a case in British history; and I speak of the time when the Society of Friends refused to pay Church rates. Those Church rates were as legal as any rents which landlords are entitled to receive in Ireland. Could it be maintained, in the present century, that it would have been possible to send a member of the Society of Friends to solitary confinement for refusing to give information? I think it is said that the combination with regard to rent is of a very shocking nature. I have heard it put that this is not only a combination of tenants who cannot pay, but also a combination of those tenants who can pay, but will not pay. I suggest that the tenants who cannot pay do not want much persuasion on the subject, and that among those who can pay there are honest men who urge those who can pay not to pay, so that they may procure the support of their miserable co-tenants in their endeavour to resist exorbitant rent. And however much you may determine to punish them, surely you will not try to deal with people—who refuse to give information—with the severity of punishment which becomes torture to them. we are occasionally, in this country, fond of denouncing the severity of punishment in other lands; but I know of no punishment conceivably more severe than to take an individual used to ordinary life, to shut him out from people with whom he has been in the habit of associating, to deny him any access to books and papers, and leave to him simply the blank walls of his cell. It is so absolutely shocking that I appeal to every Member, without reference to politics, to make some alteration here. As far as I can understand, the provision under this clause is much worse than the arrangement under Mr. Forster's Act. I will not trouble the Committee further; but I should not have done my duty had I not called attention to this subject.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I think there is a good deal to be said as to the rules which concern the regulations of prisons; and
  1510
  my right hon. Friend has given an undertaking on the part of the Government that if there is any unnecessary harshness in the treatment of witnesses who have been imprisoned, it would be the duty of the Government to review the regulations. But I submit to the Committee that this part of the clause has been very fully discussed, and that It would be consistent with the convenience of the Committee that we should now come to a decision by dividing on the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I agree fully with the right hon. Gentleman that regard should be had to the promise given with reference to the review of the prison regulations, because I believe it to be made in all sincerity. But the time when it would come about it is extremely difficult to predict. And even if it were to come about at once, I own I have, in my own mind, the greatest difficulty with regard to placing in the same category the man who refuses to assist the known ends of public justice as handed down to us, and the man who may be called possibly to give evidence against his father, and to say whether his father has been concerned in the advising of another not to let or hire a farm. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this subject has been well and fully argued. I quite admit that there remains the all-important question of the limitation or non-limitation of the clause; but if the Government are determined not to move on the subject, if I might offer a suggestion to the Committee, it would be the same as that given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 195: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 125.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Looking at the result of the Division which has just taken place, I hope that, although the Government may not be inclined to modify the character of the imprisonment, they will, at all events, shorten its duration. Under the Petty Sessions Act, it is provided that whenever a person shall appear as witness, and shall be required to answer questions by the justice, and refuse to be examined on oath, or refuse to take such

  1511
  oath, or refuse to answer the question concerning the matter in question, or refuse to give an account of papers or documents, the justice may adjourn the proceedings, and may by warrant commit the said witness to gaol unless he shall consent to be sworn. And it further provides that if such witness again refuses to be sworn, or to produce accounts, papers, or documents, as the case may be, the said justice may again adjourn the proceedings and commit him to prison, and so on from time to time until he shall consent to be sworn and produce the accounts, papers, and documents. It provides also that in all cases, other than the case of summary jurisdiction, there shall be no limit to the duration of imprisonment. Let me call attention to the fact that the Bill was introduced into the House of Lords, and passed by that ancient and venerable Assembly, reducing the term of imprisonment to three months. That Bill came down to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons refused to pass it on the ground that it had not time to do so. If the House of Lords passed that Bill restricting the term of imprisonment to three months, how much more should this House of Commons be ready to put some limit to the period of imprisonment? Suppose the case is one of murder; the murderer may have been hanged; but if the witness refuses to produce books and accounts, although the purpose of the inquiry had been served, yet the punishment for contempt will continue if the man still refuses to answer. There is in this scheme, which is embodied in the Bill, one very objectionable provision; it is not that a man may refuse to answer—because he may give all the verbal information in his power—but if he does not produce accounts, books, documents, papers, although he may have discharged his mind with regard to the crime, he is to be committed to prison. Suppose, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) were examined with reference to the Plan of Campaign, he might refuse to give up his banking account on the ground that it was not necessary for the purpose of the inquiry, his refusal would be contempt under this section, and my hon. Friend would be committed to prison for an unlimited period, although he had given all the information in his power concerning the matter in question.
  1512
  Now, I ask if it is reasonable that—the House of Lords, having agreed to reduce the term of imprisonment to three months—the Government should be at this time of day continuing the provisions of the Petty Sessions Act. I will not at the present moment go into the question of the treatment of these prisoners; but surely, when you refuse to treat them with anything like consideration, you should, at all events, shorten the period of their incarceration. I do not say that the acceptance of this Amendment by the Government would meet the whole case; but it would, at all events, be some concession to the justice of our demands.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 23, insert "Provided that no person shall be imprisoned for an offence against the said enactments for a period exceeding seven days."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The power which is given of holding a preliminary inquiry, can never be exercised unless there is some penalty attached to refusal to give evidence. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, which provides that the period of imprisonment should not be more than seven days would, in my opinion, render the power nugatory. The Government do not ask for any alteration of the Law, but simply that the Law, as it at present exists in England and Ireland, shall be applied to these preliminary inquiries. As the Law at present stands, in cases of summary jurisdiction, the imprisonment is limited to a month, and during that month the prisoner must be brought up four times before the magistrate, so that he has four opportunities of purging his contempt. If when he is brought up he repeats the original contumacy he may be imprisoned for seven days more. That is the Law in England and the Law in Ireland. Although the hon. and learned Member has referred to the Bill introduced into the House of Lords, I should be surprised to find that it contains any provision to reduce the term of imprisonment in the case of a witness who may be committed for the contempt of refusing to answer. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have sent for the Bill.] If a warrant is issued against a witness for refusing to answer

  1513
  a question, that warrant must state on the face of it the question which he declined to answer and on account of which he is committed. That gives the prisoner at any moment an opportunity of having the legality of his committal tested either by a writ of Habeas Corpus or otherwise, and I do not think that any magistrate would be likely to run the risk of the penalty which would be applied in the case of wrongful committal, but would take great care that it was only in extreme cases that he committed a witness at all. I think it would be exceedingly inconvenient as well as exceedingly improper to change the Law on this subject as regards the particular penalty under this Bill. If there be any reason for altering the provision of the Law as it now stands let that alteration be made, but we have said from the first that having asked the House for the power of holding these preliminary investigations, we think that the ordinary penalties which attach under the ordinary Law should attach in this particular instance.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has stated what is the Law of England and Ireland on this subject, but he omitted to inform the Committee that under the existing Law witnesses are so safeguarded that they cannot be pressed or asked to answer questions which are not within the rules of evidence. The right hon. and learned Attorney General last night refused to admit that the Government did not mean to apply the rules of evidence in this case. I put this question to the right hon. and learned Attorney General—If a witness is asked whether he knows anything about the matter, and he says he knows nothing, that is one thing, but suppose he is asked whether he has heard anyone else say anything about it and he says "Yes," his answer might tend to incriminate another party. Now, any person would be justified by the Law in England or Ireland in refusing to answer that question, but under this Bill he would be asked that question and he may be sent to prison for refusing to answer it. An English Court of Law would sustain him in his refusal. The right hon. and learned Attorney General says you may appeal to the Court above; but what is the use of that? The Court above cannot give any redress, because
  1514
  this tribunal is superior. You have declared that it shall be unrestricted in this inquiry by the ordinary laws of justice and evidence which bind the highest Courts of Law in the land. I put the case of hearsay evidence, and I have put the case of the competency of the witness. I was consulting recently one of the most eminent of the Scotch Judges on the subject, and he says that he should never dream of allowing a question to be put to a witness which could not be put in a Court of Law. The Government have declared that their object is that the magistrates should put questions which would not be allowed, and send witnesses to prison for not answering them. Besides the question of the Law of Evidence as I have said there is that of the competency of the witnesses; for instance a wife might be asked to answer questions concerning an offence with which her husband might afterwards be charged, and if she were to refuse to answer on the ground that she believed her husband was about to be charged in connection with the offence, she would in a Court of Law be sustained in that. Therefore, I ask what is the use of appealing to the practice in the English or Irish Courts of Justice? That practice relates only to men who are under the protection of the regular Law of Evidence, but you are applying your clause to men who are to be asked questions under circumstances in which that practice will not be applied. If I were asked a question on this subject—if I were asked whether I knew anything about the crime, and knew nothing about it, I should say so; but if the magistrate asked me if I had known anything about it, I should refuse to answer. Why am I—in a case of murder of which I know nothing—to be compelled to reveal all the gossip I have heard on the subject, and which may bring a man in peril of his life. I should say—"No, this is far too grave a matter; I will give my evidence according to my conception of the Law of Evidence, but with regard to what I have heard whispered, it may be with the object of injuring another man, I will not answer." It is for making such an answer as that that a man is under this clause to be sent to prison for contempt. Therefore, I say you have destroyed the efficacy of this method of inquiry in the conception of every man who has a

  1515
  respect for justice by refusing the witness that protection which belongs to the Rules and Law of Evidence. If you say you will punish a man who will not give legal evidence on a matter of which he knows something, then I am with you. I would punish that man in England, Scotland, or Ireland; but if you are proposing to punish a man because he will not state all the hearsay slanders and calumnies which he has no reason to believe, then I say it is one of the most wicked acts and one of the most incompatible with justice which it is possible to conceive. I am bound to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman will not ultimately refuse to screen this proceeding, and that he will see that the character of the inquiry should be such that would demand nothing of a man in the position of a witness in these cases which would not be sanctioned by the Rules of Evidence. I am sure the right hon. and learned Attorney General must see the infinite danger of putting this clause into the hands of a man far less responsible and far less skilled than a judge. It is quite capable of being abused, and this very thing shows the force of the contention that the matter should be settled according to the Rule and Law of Evidence; and I trust that the Government will say that this power shall be safeguarded in accordance therewith.
  THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I think the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the great safeguard and protection which this Bill affords, and for which the Government are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman himself—that is, the protection which a witness has that nothing he may say can be used against him under any circumstances, or in any subsequent proceedings, except those for perjury. We now repeat that assurance, and whatever may be said upon the subject, this is a very important and a very great safeguard.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My objection does not apply to the witness being made to suffer hardships for the evidence given. My objection is to the punishment of a witness for not giving a particular class of evidence; and I put to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland the case of a man refusing from the most honourable motives to retail conversation which
  1516
  might be injurious to another, who may be ultimately a prisoner. A man's character may be injured; he may be damaged in this private examination by people being asked to say what they do not know to be true, and what, if it were said, would be no evidence at all. That is my point, and the protection to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred is no protection against the danger of being sent to prison for refusing to answer questions which he is not able to answer. All I can say is, that if I were in the position I have described, I should refuse to answer, and take the consequences. You must remember that this is a thing which has no parallel in the Courts of Law, and I hope the Government will think again before they decide against the Amendment.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): If I may give my opinion on this point, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman had laid down a principle of evidence with which I cannot agree. He says under no circumstances whatever would he repeat to anybody hearsay evidence, even if it would lead to the discovery of murder.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTNot in judicial cases.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURIn other words if a person told him he had seen a man murdered in the next street, the right hon. Gentleman would consider himself bound by the Law of Honour and Evidence not to communicate that to the Judicial Authorities, by whom ultimately, the criminal, on the statement being made to them, might be brought to justice. That seems to me to be an extraordinary principle to lay down. But I wish to ask who it is that is not protected by the clause as it now stands. Is it the witness or the criminal? The witness is sufficiently protected by the fact that anything which he says cannot be used against him; and clearly the criminal is protected by the fact that nothing that the witness may say, and which does not come within the description of the evidence which can be used in a Court of Law can be brought up against him. A witness may say something in his examination which may put the Crown on the trace of crime; that is what may happen, and what we desire to happen; but nothing which the witness says can

  1517
  be brought up against an accused person unless it is strictly in conformity with the rules of the Courts of Justice with regard to evidence.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThe point is not what may happen after the witness has said something; it is that a man may be committed for refusing to answer a question which any man may properly refuse to answer.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURMy reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that no statement of the witness can hurt the prisoner, except that it may lead to the production of evidence. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of stealing away a man's character. But can the witness steal away a man's character unless by giving evidence which leads to the apprehension of someone. The investigations would be perfectly secret, and nobody's character will be touched. Although I do not wish to introduce unnecessarily controversial matter, but when the right hon. Gentleman exhausts the whole vocabulary in attacking this clause, he surely might recollect that he has twice enriched the law with a similar clause. The right hon. Gentleman may change his opinion about Irish Government, but that which he said did not apply to the clause in 1883 does not surely apply to it in 1887. The right hon. Gentleman allowed this provision to be on the Statute Book then and he cannot consistently say that it is harsh in the present case. I do not wish to push this argument against the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTIt is the only argument you have used.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think it is a bad argument, at all events, to say that we are simply repeating in this Bill one of the provisions of an Act passed during the last five years with the full assent of the Liberal Party in both Houses of Parliament.
  MR. ANDERSON: I think it is clear that on this point we are to have no mercy from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The way in which he speaks of the penal character of the clause seems to show that he rather enjoys it. I know that if we had a shorthand writer here to take down the words he used we should find that instead of witnesses he talks of the "accused." The right hon Gentleman seems to think that every
  1518
  unfortunate witness under this Act is guilty. That idea seems to pervade the mind of the Government; they seem to think that because a man is connected with a district in which there is some agrarian difficulty he is a guilty person. It seems to be the whole fallacy of the Government with respect to this clause. I agree that when you are legislating in regard to the ordinary law that you should be consistent, and I think this should be the case in regard to the law of contempt. But are you going to apply the ordinary law of contempt to ordinary offences? This ordinary law is intended to be applied to ordinary crimes; but you introduce by this Act of Parliament new crimes, a new procedure, and a new kind of examination of witnesses of an extraordinary character; and it is no argument to say that you are going to apply the ordinary law of contempt when you are about to make a new offence under this Act. I must say that the argument used by the Government seems to me entirely to fail to meet the difficulty which has been put forward on this side of the House. The argument is that there is nothing in the clause that is not in the Act of 1882, and beyond that there is no argument at all. But I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is entirely mistaken when he says that the witness is protected. The witness is not protected. The fact that the statement he makes cannot be used against him is no protection whatever. You get out in examination what you want; you get the secrets of a man's life, and the fact that the statement is not to be used does not prevent that. You ask a man these questions; he is bound to answer any question asked; you have your shorthand writer to take down his answer. This is a means of getting a man to convict himself by a system which has no limit. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson)—whom I am glad to see in his place—has not told us anything lately about the law of Scotland. The people of Scotland do not like to hear it said that three-fourths of this Bill is the law of Scotland. I ask the Scotch Law Officers to tell us which part of the Bill is Scotch Law, and whether it is over exercised? I trust the Government will accept this Amendment. It cannot hurt the Government; it can-

  1519
  not interfere with the object they have in view; and I appeal to them to make some concession which will at any rates let the people feel that a concession has been made, and that the clause will not have that possibly cruel effect which it will have if it is allowed to stand as at present.
  MR. O'HEA: The speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) were enough, I think, to show that Her Majesty's Government intend to punish, by making them witnesses, those who are their political opponents in Ireland. Under this clause a person may be summoned as witness in respect of some crime which only exists in the mind of a police constable or magistrate, and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (M. T. M. Healy) said, when a person is summoned to give evidence, because he may refuse to produce his books and banking account, and reveal his private and domestic affairs, he can be kept in gaol as long as Her Majesty's Government think fit. To say that this Bill is not intended to cover a wider scope than that which is expressed in the 2nd section, is nothing more than a pretence. The persons who will be dealt with under this Act are those who will be punished under the Summary Jurisdiction Clause by a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. Supposing an offence to be committed in a district; a person who is, perhaps, Chairman of the Poor Law Board, or acting in some public capacity, may be summoned as a witness, while a number of others may be able to give a great deal more information with regard to the matter in question; this person may be kept in prison for an unlimited time, although he is not charged with any offence under the section, because of his refusal to give evidence. That, I contend, is the view which may be deduced from the action of Her Majesty's Government and the attitude of the right hon. and learned Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. While one person in respect of the offence is undergoing imprisonment, another man may be kept in solitary confinement for refusing to reveal what may be altogether
  1520
  foreign to the Act and the subject-matter of the inquiry.
  MR. MOLLOY: the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has stated that when a witness is committed for contempt of Court he will have the right of appeal, and sue out a writ of Habeas Corpus. But is it not a fact that under the Bill the Resident Magistrate can ask any question he likes? Of course, if he is able to ask any question, he may go very wide of the subject in the warrant. That being so, how are you to sue out a writ of Habeas Corpus to test whether the witness has been wrongfully committed or not? Would not the Court say that under the powers of the Bill the magistrate had a right to ask any question he might think proper, and that he has power to commit a witness to prison if he refused to answer? Would not the Court answer that it had no power to interfere since the Resident Magistrate had acted strictly within the limits of the power conferred upon him by the Act? There has been an argument used by the right hon. and learned Attorney General which I should like to put an end to once for all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that witnesses summoned before the magistrates are protected as no witnesses have been protected before by any rule of law, and because nothing that a witness says can be produced against him. But, under the ordinary law, if you ask a witness a question which may criminate him, he makes that excuse at once and declines to answer. Now, I ask where is the force of the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Now, there has been put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford a question which ought to be answered. He has asked that a limit should be put to imprisonment under this clause. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland did not touch that question in the least degree; nor did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the observations he made in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). Supposing that a witness is committed for the contempt of not answering a question, on the ground that the question is unusual and has nothing whatever to do with the subject-matter

  1521
  of the inquiry; on the supposition that he committed the crime, will that person then be entitled to his dismissal from prison as regards his contempt of Court? These are questions which I should be glad if the right hon. and learned Attorney General would answer, more especially that with regard to sueing out the writ of Habeas Corpus.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have here the Bill to which I referred as having been passed by the House of Lords, and as to which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland expressed some doubt. It provides that every sentence or order for attachment or commitment to prison for contempt "shall operate and be in force for such time not exceeding three months." I ask the Government to give us the law as the House of Lords agreed to it, and I think that is not an unreasonable request. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says that if there is a wrongful commitment there will be a full check upon it, because the particulars will have to be set out in the warrant; but I point out that the Government have not even taken the trouble to put on the Paper their own views. They tell us what their views are; but if we had them on the Paper we should be able to give them our views as to whether they were carrying out the intention they have expressed. I do hope that the Government will be persuaded to agree not to have this continuous punishment inflicted under the Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): With regard to our not putting down the Amendment referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it will be seen that there are some Amendments which have to be disposed of before the Amendment of my right hon. Friend can be dealt with. With regard to this Amendment, I cannot assent to the limit proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If I remember rightly, the Bill referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman related to ordinary commitments, but it had no reference to what is contemplated in this Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYI think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. I am sorry the Government do not see their way to accept my Amendment, and I shall feel it my duty
  1522
  to divide the Committee upon the question.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I cannot agree with what the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says with reference to the witness having the right of appeal; but even if he could sue out a writ of Habeas Corpus I cannot agree that it would be the smallest protection to persons examined under this clause. We know that the persons who will be sent to prison are those who belong largely to the poorer portion of the peasant class, to whom the cost would render it impossible that they should sue out the writ. The cost of a provisional order for a writ of Habeas Corpus would be from £10 to £20, and that 99 out of 100 of the class I have referred to could not pay, and those who were sent to gaol would have to remain there indefinitely unless this Amendment is accepted. I call the attention of the right hon. and learned Attorney General to the fact that in the Bill, as it at present stands, in the case of a large class of the offences detailed in the 2nd section, it will be in the power of the Government to treat these offences as punishable summarily, and that when they want to got evidence they can refuse to treat them so, and imprison the witnesses for refusing to answer. They will be treated summarily when the Government want to get two Resident Magistrates speedily to convict a prisoner; but they will be indictable whenever a man is brought up under the clause and refuses to answer. Take the offences described in the 2nd section of the Bill—taking part in any criminal conspiracy and Boycotting—for what I say will also apply to them, and let us see what will be the state of things with regard to that class of offences. The Bill does not provide that they are to cease to be indictable offences. They are to remain indictable offences; but what the Bill does is to enable the Resident Magistrates to deal with thorn summarily. Therefore, I say that injustice will be perpetrated, and that so to speak the Government will be able to play the game of "Heads I win, tails you lose," according as they want to send a man to prison indefinitely or otherwise. I submit that this is most unfair, and that no one who considers the matter will regard it in any other light. I appeal to the Government at least to say whe-

  1523
  ther they will be prepared to accept an Amendment providing that an offence punishable summarily under clause 2 shall not be treated as an indictable offence for the purpose of the 1st clause of the Bill. That I think is a fair offer. If we are not to get any concession with regard to the period of imprisonment. I think we are entitled to some reply on this point. Now, the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, who I regret is not in his place, in his usual manner in dealing with this Amendment spoke of the period of one week as the principal point which we were contending for. But we do not stick on that point. We do not ask that the imprisonment should be limited to a week, although a great many reasons could be urged in favour of the view that a week would not be too short a period; but we ask that in no case shall a Resident Magistrate have the indefininite power of imprisoning which the clause implies. Let some limit be placed to this. Let the Government take, for instance, a month in the case of an indictable offence, and if that will not satisfy them let them put down two months. I respectfully submit that we are entitled to some limit, because under the clause as it stands a man may be put in prison for refusing to answer a question, for a longer period than he would get in Court if he were found guilty of an indictable offence. There are hundreds of cases in which it would not be dreamt of giving a longer term of imprisonment than of four, five, or six months. Is it to be said that, though in ordinary cases of contempt the man found guilty would not be sentenced by a Judge to a longer period of imprisonment than a couple of months, magistrates under this section should have the power of imprisonment indefinitely. Such a state of things cannot be defended by reason and argument, and I do not think that we are doing anything unreasonable in asking that some limit, at all events, should be imposed upon the power of imprisonment conferred by this section. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has adverted to a large number of cases in which witnesses might come to the conclusion that they were bound in honour not to answer the question which a magistrate might put to them. The right hon. Gentleman
  1524
  pointed out that the effect of compelling a witness to answer as regards hearsay matters, as regards tittle-tattle, might be to make him a party to taking away the character of a person who might be as innocent of the charge as the witness was himself. Thereupon, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) rose in his place and made a great point, by saying that no one would hear what was said except the magistrate holding the inquiry, and that the information would not be afterwards used for any purpose. Do the Government mean to tell us that a magistrate holding an inquiry will be sworn to secrecy; and will there be anything to prevent a magistrate who holds an inquiry from going about the country telling this man and that man what somebody said when brought up at an inquiry? Why, Sir, these inquiries might be made a gigantic machine for taking away the character of respectable persons in Ireland; Magistrates will hold inquiries in some little towns in reference to some offences which have been committed, and, no doubt, some unscrupulous person will be ready to come forward and to say—"I do not know anything about this offence, but I heard so-and-so say that John Smith committed it." Because there are unscrupulous persons ready to make these assertions, is it to be within the power of a magistrate to retail this tittle-tattle; is it to be within the power of a magistrate holding an inquiry to retail all over the country-side the slanders he has heard repeated in the privacy of these inquiries? It is all very well to tell us that magistrates will not do this kind of thing. We know what these gentlemen are; we know that when they get their legs under the mahogany of some county club, every atom of the evidence given at these inquiries will be retailed for the benefit of the landlords and agents who frequent the place. There is no justification whatever for the allegation that there will be any special secrecy about these inquiries. The magistrate who holds them will not be bound to secrecy. Perhaps I am trespassing too long upon the Committee; if so I must apologize for doing so, and I will only advert to one other matter, which I will make relevant to this question of hearsay evidence. It has been submitted to you, Sir, and I think very properly, that a

  1525
  large number of cases may arise, in which it would be unjust that a Resident Magistrate should have the power to commit, indefinitely, a person who might consider himself bound in honour to refrain from answering as to the gossip which he has casually heard, and about which he really knows nothing. "Oh," says the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour), "it can do no harm at all that he should tell at those inquiries, because what he says at these inquiries can never be put in evidence against anybody." I have made a point already in regard to that statement, and it has never been answered. I maintain that gossip may be given in evidence, and I put a case in point, and no learned Gentleman on the Treasury Bench will attempt to challenge it. Let me take this case. The Government have now announced that, in consideration of an alleged concession made on an Amendment of ours, they intend to permit the depositions taken at these inquiries to be used by the Crown in case any witness examined at the inquiries should go back on what he said, or, upon cross-examination, declare that what he said at the inquiry was false. If the Government carry out that intention it will be in the power of the prosecuting counsel, if anyone of the Crown witnesses says anything different from what he has sworn at the inquiry to confront him with his own deposition, and to put that deposition in evidence, to use it for the purpose of contradicting the witness. What I insist upon is this, that when a deposition is so used in evidence, not merely will the portions which relate to what is within the knowledge of the witness be put in, but every bit of the deposition containing, perhaps, such gossip as I have mentioned, such hearsay evidence as would not, under ordinary circumstances, be admissible; every atom of the deposition, no matter how irrelevant and how illegal some of them may be, will be put in evidence against the prisoner. These considerations, Mr. Courtney, make it all the more important that the Resident Magistrate holding these inquiries should have some limit placed upon his powers. It may be that the Government contend that no consideration of that kind should prevent a witness from helping the administration of justice by answering any questions put to him. That may be so; the Govern-
  1526
  ment may be right in that, but what we maintain is that, whether they are right or not, it is conceivable that a case can arise in which a witness might consider himself justified from conscientious motives in refusing to answer. And we say that a Court constituted under this section should not have the power of indefinitely imprisoning a witness who, upon conscientious grounds, objects to answer certain questions.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: Mr. Courtney, I will not intervene for more than a couple of minutes between the Committee and the Division; but I want to point out that there is one hopeful side about this discussion. The occupants of the Tory Benches, except the Front Government Bench, are silent, and I hope I may assume that hon. Gentlemen who sit upon those Benches are disposed to look favourably upon the Amendment now before the Committee. If I am right in my surmise, I think that we shall find that there is yet courage enough on the part of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House to give expression to their views. There are two points on which the Government rely, as far as I can gather from their arguments, for the carrying of this clause. The first is that the witness is protected by the fact that he cannot be indicted for anything he professes by his evidence. But the whole value of that is destroyed by the fact that a magistrate has power to imprison a man perpetually, whether the evidence is against himself or not. If the Government brought this man to justice, in all probability he would be likely to get a less severe punishment than would be inflicted upon him by magistrates under this section. I contend that the Government are seeking to obtain power to perpetually imprison a man for no criminal act at all, but simply because a man declines to give any evidence, or is not honourably able to give evidence. Then there was another point very much relied upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and that was, that in the Act of 1882 there was power to imprison witnesses in connection with criminal offences. But the Government lose sight of the fact, or if they do not lose sight of it they try to evade it, that the offences contemplated by this Bill are not criminal offences at all, but political. It

  1527
  is a very different tiling, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) pointed out, to imprison a man for refusing to give evidence where a great crime has been committed, and imprisoning a man for refusing to give evidence in connection with political offences. I hope the day will never come when political offences in this country will be placed in the same category as offences against the Criminal Law. There is one thing which has struck me very much during this debate, and that is that, while during the last 50 years we have been continually improving the Criminal Law in this country, and have improved it with so much advantage, we are now in regard to Ireland going back in legislation, and we are actually making a Criminal Law so oppressive, and I believe so utterly disliked by the people, that instead of having their sympathy on the side of law and order, we have their sympathy invoked against the administration of the law. On these grounds, I disapprove of the clause which is now before the Committee, but if it is to be adopted I shall support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy).
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Mr. Courtney, it is the contention of the Government that the power of commitment will not be improperly exercised; but, judging from experience, we are unable to put much faith in such a declaration. The Committee is in possession of certain statistics as regards commitments for contempt by the Irish Bankruptcy Court, and I venture to draw the attention of the Government to what has already been done in Ireland almost unnoticed. Our contention is that every law intended for civil administration in Ireland is diverted into a political channel by which to inflict suffering on the people, and the proceedings of the Irish Bankruptcy Court illustrates this strongly. A Return was recently presented to the House, showing the number of commitments by the Bankruptcy Court for contempt. It will be maintained by anyone who attends the Irish Bankruptcy Court, or watches its proceedings, that the most singular means are taken to arrive at the truth. An agrarian complexion is given to the dealings with all those who are brought before the Court, and we allege that
  1528
  this clause will be worked to carry out the agrarian views of the Government. If it is possible in the case of one man, why should it not be possible for many men to be committed for an indefinite period for contempt of Court. Michael——was committed by the Bankruptcy Court for contempt on the 19th of January, 1886, and he is still in prison, If it is possible to keep that man in gaol from January, 1886, until the present moment for what is considered unsatisfactory answering, how much more likely is it that this clause and this Bill will be used in a more severe and drastic way towards persons in Ireland who are suspected of political offences, or towards farmers who are accused of not paying impossible rents to the landlords, the friends of the magistrates? In the case of this man it is a melancholy fact that he is incapable of taking steps to obtain his release, My hon. Friend the junior Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) has pointed out that the vast majority of the men who will be committed for contempt will not have the means of taking steps to extricate themselves from prison. Michael——has been in gaol since January, 1886, and his wife and children are in the workhouse as a consequence of his committal for unsatisfactory answering. In the Return, it is shown that two men named Howard are lingering in prison for contempt. I am assured that these men are absolutely idiots. There is a grosser case, which does not appear at all in the Return. It is the case of two men of the county of Kerry. A once Member of this House—the O'Donoughue—has a property in Kerry, which is a burden to himself and to every one who lives upon it. The two men in question applied for a reduction of rent; but the agent refused it. They fell into arrears and were evicted; when they saw there was no one to prevent them they went back to their huts. The Sheriff was armed with authority to arrest the men; he came out and arrested one of the men, lodged him in gaol, where he was kept for two years, until, in fact, the Motion for this Return was made, when the Government thought it better to overhaul the account. The Resident Magistrate is, virtually, the gamekeeper and bailiff of the local landlord; and if Judges of the land commit indefinitely for con-

  1529
  tempt, what can be expected from these local despots?
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I know something of the power of imprisonment for contempt. I have seen a good deal of it in my professional career; and I must say that a more barbarous mode of enforcing the law does not exist. In recent times we have restricted the time of imprisonment; but, as a general rule, whore a man is imprisoned for contempt of the Supreme Court of Justice, he is discharged on payment of costs; that, however, means that the man is possessed of money. I really put it to the Government whether it would not be possible—I do not want to restrict myself to the period of seven days—to impose some limit upon that practically unlimited power which they are giving to Summary Courts. The legislature has found it necessary to impose a limit in the case of the Supreme Court; therefore, I really think the Government might fairly see their way to propose some limitation in the case of inferior Courts.
  MR. MURPHY: I understand the Government refuse any concession upon this point on the ground that there will be no abuse of the power of commitment proposed to be conferred on the Resident Magistrates. I have, however, personal knowledge of at least three cases of persons committed for an indefinite period. In two of the cases the men are mentally unfit to plead. I do not know what will be considered unsatisfactory answering; but I can quite conceive there will be great abuse of the power of commitment for contempt. I trust that if the Government cannot accept this Amendment, they will, at all events, make some compromise in the matter.
  DR. TANNER: I have to call your attention, Mr. Courtney, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
  Committee counted; and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. WALLACE: I shall not detain the Committee many minutes, and I should not have addressed them at all, except that I wish to explain to the Committee the reason why I feel myself unable to accept the principle upon which it seems to me the Go-
  1530
  vernment steadily refuse Amendments of the nature of that which is now before the Committee. Their refusal in this case is precisely on the same ground as their refusal in the preceding case, and the Amendments are kindred in nature. The principle on which they go, as I understand it, is that there is no difference, in point of moral turpitude, on the part of a witness who refuses to be sworn, or to give evidence in a trial under the existing law, and the refusal of a witness to answer questions put to him at these preliminary inquiries. That argument has been stated over and over again by the Government, and was also well put in point of form by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Finlay). I am unable to say that that principle is sound. It seems to me that it is vitiated by a fatal fallacy, and that is in not distinguishing between the circumstances of the two cases, which create a totally different moral position for a witness, in the one case, from what he occupies in the other case. Take the case of the refusal of a witness to give testimony in a regular trial under the present law. Now, it seems to me that there is a far greater degree of moral turpitude in the refusal of a witness in a trial under the present law, from what there would be in the case of a witness in the inquiries proposed to be created by this Bill. The witness at present who refuses may be committing, is almost certain to be committing, something which is morally indefensible. A fellow-creature is on his trial, it may be for his life, it must bo, at all events, for his infamy, or his loss. A witness who then refuses to state what he knows may be incurring the guilt of allowing a fellow-creature who is innocent to be unrighteously condemned. On the other hand, if the prisoner who is on trial is guilty, the witness, by his refusal to give evidence, is declining to protect his country from a clearly ascertained enemy—a pest in that way. I say he cannot but have clearly forced home upon his mind the consciousness that he is acting against his duty in refusing to give his testimony as a contribution to the cause of justice, either on the behalf of an innocent and maligned fellow-being, or on behalf of the country and society. The whole surroundings of the trial tend to give the man a clear-ness of mental vision in regard to his

  1531
  duty in the matter. He is made a party to the whole proceedings, he hears the explanation of the charge, he understands the risk to which society is exposed, he sees the individual, he becomes acquainted with the individual, and gets into new moral and personal relations with the individual whose fate may be depending upon his giving or withholding his testimony, and therefore I say that the distinctness of the understanding with reference to his duty which is forced home to his mind can hardly be exceeded, he is left without an excuse. But in the case of the proposed preliminary inquiry, the conditions are so totally different, that they are almost totally reversed. The whole thing is vague—there is no person with whom he is made acquainted, whoso fate is made evident to him as depending upon his conduct. The Resident Magistrate has arbitrary power, requiring him to answer questions on this, that, or the other matter, the bearing of which upon any particular individual or element of public welfare is totally concealed from his mind. I say that, under these circumstances, nothing could be more completely calculated to produce vagueness and indistinctness of mental vision with respect to a man's duty in the matter of witness-bearing than this preliminary inquiry. If it had been ingeniously contrived to obfuscate a man's sense of his duty, it could not have been more successfully constructed. Therefore, I say, the obligation upon a witness in a regularly constituted trial at law under the present system, and. the obligation upon a proposed witness in this preliminary investigation, do not stand upon the same level at all, and do not carry with them the same correlative moral obligation. To tell me, therefore, that a person who refuses to give testimony at a preliminary inquiry stands upon the same basis of guiltiness, and merits the same primitive treatment, as a person who refuses to give evidence at an ordinary trial at law, is to tell me something which is ridiculous. As far as I am able to understand the principle upon which the Government go, it is an untenable one, it is an endeavour to identify positions which are totally distinct. Upon this point a very subtle argument was advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); that argument has not been
  1532
  answered as yet from the other side; and, in fact, hon. Gentlemen opposite hardly seem to perfectly comprehend the force of the argument. I mate no allusion to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), because he did not deal with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby; I only speak of those who did affect to deal with it. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) was simply this—that the moral guilt of a witness who refuses, in the case of a regular trial, according to the standard established by the Laws of Evidence, is necessarily totally distinct from the guilt of a witness who refuses to answer under the entirely new standard of evidence which is set up in regard to this preliminary inquiry. The Laws of Evidence are understood to be an absolutely perfect instrument for getting out truth and gaining justice, and anything that differs from that, or contradicts the established Rules of Evidence, must to that extent be an instrument of injustice. It is one thing to refuse to use the instrument of justice, and another, and a totally different thing, to refuse to use the instrument of injustice. What the witness in the proposed preliminary inquiry refuses to use is not the instrument of justice, but, by the hypothesis, is the instrument of injustice. It is extremely hard upon Irish witnesses, in the peculiar circumstances of their situation, to propose to deal with them in this way. They have a sense of political wrong, which naturally creates in their minds a feeling that they are not justified in making contribution to information that may be useful to a Government which they regard as their enemy. The relationship between the Irish people and the Government is totally different from the relationship between the people of this country and the British Government. There is a relationship of friendliness between the people of this country and the British Government, even although there may not be agreement in Party politics; but there is no such relationship between the Irish people and Dublin Castle. We can see every day, illustrated across the floor of this House, the relationship between these two Parties—a relationship which, I venture to say, is one of mutual hatred. ["Oh, oh!" and Irish cheers.]

  1533
  I am speaking only of the impression made on my mind by the evidence before me. It seems to me that the Irish nation hates Dublin Castle just as heartily as Dublin Castle hates the Irish nation, and that being so, the feeling that is necessarily created in the mind of the average Irish witness must be that he is not only entitled, but even bound in honour and in national duty, to keep back what he knows from the enemy, or even to mislead him, or send him upon the wrong track. The position is one of war—it may be a bloodless and Constitutional war—but still it is war, and war, we know, suspends ordinary moral relations and duties. The state of mind of the average Irish witness is one in which he feels himself not only authorized, but even morally bound, to do what he can to prevent the secrets of his own political side from being revealed to the enemy, so as to enable them to strike down his friends. I say, in such a condition of feeling, it is peculiarly hard and oppressive that the average Irish witness should be subject to the treatment to which this legislation proposes to subject him. Now, these are the reasons which have induced me to trespass, somewhat reluctantly, upon the attention of the Committee at this time. I think there is a fallacy in the position taken up by the Government in identifying the positions and demerits of the two classes of witnesses; and I think, further, there is an excuse for the refusal on the part of Irish witnesses to give evidence in connection with political crimes that ought to be considered even by a Government that feels itself related towards them not as a friendly protector, but as a baffled tyrant—a Government that is trying, by a difficult and ever-increasingly difficult means, to establish its unauthorized tyranny over the people.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 138: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 126.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: Several Amendments follow in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy). Some of them refer to the 3rd sub-section, and others constitute Provisos; but they are mixed together. The Provisos must come first. The 1st Proviso, No. 69, has been
  1534
  already decided, therefore, it will fall upon the hon. Gentleman to move Proviso No. 71.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not know whether the Government are disposed to look on this Amendment favourably or not; but I cannot think there is anything in it to which they can reasonably object. The Committee has decided that it is to be in the power of a Resident Magistrate to arrest a witness in the first instance. The Petty Sessions Act provides that before a witness can be arrested without summons, an information must be sworn, the witness can command a copy of the sworn information, and has a right to redress if a wrong has been inflicted upon him. It is supposed that many witnesses will probably leave the country the moment they receive an information that they will be summoned; and we apprehend that, in some districts of Ireland, the police will exercise this power of arresting a person, though there is no necessity whatever for such a proceeding, and we want to provide that the party by whom the wrong is inflicted may be brought to justice. We think that a witness should be entitled to obtain a copy of the information on which the warrant for his arrest is founded. A policeman, or other person, may maliciously go to a magistrate and say, "So-and-so can give important evidence in relation to the offence that has been committed; but if he is simply summoned, he will probably leave the country, therefore a warrant should be issued for his arrest." If a policeman, or other person, does this maliciously, and does it in a case where there is no necessity for it, surely the aggrieved party ought to have some means of obtaining redress. The first step in obtaining redress, I apprehend, would be to ascertain on whose information the warrant for his arrest was issued. There could be no objection whatever to affording the information, if the policeman, or other person, had nothing to conceal. I should be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has got to say upon this point. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 23, after "thereto," insert—"Provided, that in case a warrant shall be issued for the arrest of any witness in the first

  1535
  instance, and without any summons having previously been served and disobeyed, such witness shall, on demand, be entitled to receive from the resident magistrate holding the inquiry a copy of the information or complaint on which the warrant for his arrest was issued."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maurice Healy) that nothing is more reasonable, if a man is arrested, than that he should be entitled to a copy of the information upon which his arrest is founded; but, probably, the hon. Gentleman is aware that at present it is an invariable practice that if a person is arrested on warrant, he can, upon application, get a copy of the information upon which the warrant is issued. As far as the Amendment is concerned, I have not the smallest objection to it; but it is just possible there may be some danger in its acceptance, and that it will injuriously affect the present practice.
  MR. MOLLOY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland's (Mr. Holmes) explanation is satisfactory as far as it goes; but he has pointed out that, if this Amendment is inserted in the Bill, it will endanger the right which now exists by custom of law. [Mr. HOLMES: Practice.] Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think it worth while, in accepting this Amendment, to add some qualifying words to show this is no more than an extra precaution in consequence of the extraordinary character of this Bill? [Mr. HOLMES: No.] Why not; surely the position which the Attorney General for Ireland takes up is an extraordinary one, because, he says, that under the law, as it exists, a person arrested is entitled to the information upon which the warrant for his arrest has been issued.
  MR. HOLMES: I am willing to accept the Amendment.
  MR. MOLLOY: We are very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting the Amendment; but I am pointing out that he has said that the acceptance of this Amendment would endanger the right which now exists in all other cases. Surely, if
  1536
  he accepts the Amendment, but thinks that it may endanger the present custom and right, there is no difficulty in putting in some words to make the matter clear. I presume that, in the acceptance of this Amendment, there is no intention to endanger the right which exists in all the three countries. Is there anything irrational or unreasonable in adding some qualifying words or amending the Amendment, so that there shall be no danger to the right which is acknowledged to exist?
  MR. HOLMES: The hon. and learned Gentleman is under some misapprehension. I did not say there was a right; but I said there was, as far as I am aware, a practice that a copy of the warrant and information should always be given. I merely pointed out that the acceptance of this Amendment might endanger the present practice; but said that, if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maurice Healy) desired to have this special provision here, the Government had no objection to it.
  MR. LOCKWOOD: May I point out what really is the practice in England. There can be no infringement of the practice now existing by the acceptance of this Amendment. So far as the practice of England exists at the present time, there is no section in any Act of Parliament under which a witness can be examined in the terms of the section which it is now asked shall become law, and, therefore, by acceding to this Amendment, there will be no infringement of any practice hitherto. If the right hon. Gentleman accedes to this Amendment he will not in any way jeopardize the practice as it exists at present.
  MR. HOLMES: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Question, "That these words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Provisos which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), and which are numbered 73 and 74, have already been decided, and the next Amendment to be submitted to the Committee is 75b; 75a is a separate sub-section, and will come after the Provisos as a new clause.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Then I will move 75b, which is in the following terms:—

  1537
  "Where a warrant has been issued to bring up a person under arrest for examination at an inquiry under this section, the warrant shall specify a place and a day and hour at which such examination is to take place, and such person shall be forthwith released on his entering into recognisance with sufficient sureties conditioned to attend for examination at such time or place."
  This Amendment is drawn to meet a point I have already adverted to. The Committee is aware that the Government have insisted that the court of inquiry under this clause should have the right to arrest a witness in the first instance without a summons. I have pointed out that the result of this proceeding will be this—these inquiries, in many cases, are not finished in a day, or in a week; some of them have lasted months, and have extended for a very long time indeed, and my point is that in the case of an inquiry extending for a long time it will be competent, under this clause, for the authorities to arrest an intended witness at the beginning of the month and keep him in custody for the whole month, or until the point of the inquiry arrives at which it would please the Resident Magistrate, or whoever has charge of the investigation, to examine him. I maintain that that is not reasonable, and I say that consistently with the powers which the Government say the authorities should have, my Amendment might very well be accepted. Admitting that it may be necessary to arrest a witness, if he says to the Resident Magistrate, "I am willing to enter into my recognizance or to give sureties to appear at any day or any hour to be subjected to examination, I can give sufficient security that I will not leave the country, as you say there is danger of my doing." If a witness says that, I maintain that it is unreasonable and unjust to keep him in custody for any lengthened period.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 23, after "thereto," insert—" Where a warrant has been issued to bring up a person under arrest for examination at an inquiry under this section, the warrant shall specify a place and a day and hour at which such examination is to take place, and such person shall be forthwith released on his entering into recognisance with sufficient sureties conditioned to attend for examination at such time or place."—[Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
  MR. HOLMES: If the hon. Member considers the mode in which this will work he will see that the acceptance of this Amendment would leave the witness in a much worse position than he would be under the clause as it now stands. Under the clause the magistrate may receive information that there is danger of a witness leaving the country, and he may issue a warrant to have that person brought before him forthwith for examination. The magistrates will have no power either to commit such person to prison, or to detain him in custody. It will be necessary for him then and there to examine the witness, or he will be obliged to dismiss him. The case the hon. Member has put of an examination lasting over a week or a month does not imply that a witness will be kept in custody for that period. Under the Act the magistrate will have no power to detain a witness. If he can examine then and there, well and good, but if he cannot he will have to let the witness go about his business. ["No, no!"] Will the hon. Member show me anywhere where the magistrate has power to keep a man in custody, or power to place him under recognizances to appear. It would be a very extraordinary thing if, under any circumstances, power were given to a Resident Magistrate to send a man to gaol for a week, or a fortnight, or a month, seeing that he is only engaged in an inquiry. I can assure the hon. Member that he is altogether mistaken—that no such power exists—and I can assure the Committee that I am at a loss to imagine why the Amendment has been moved.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I never, for a moment, suggested that it would be in the power of a Resident Magistrate to remand a witness arrested under these circumstances; but I say that Section 13 of the Petty Sessions Act, taken in connection with this clause, will provide that when the authorities arrest a man under the powers this law gives them, they will be able to keep him in custody until such period as he has been examined. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but if he will make it clear to me that I am wrong I shall be very happy to withdraw my Amendment and resume my seat. The Government have rejected an Amendment limiting the time they can keep a

  1539
  man in custody. They have rejected a Proviso that the authorities, when they have arrested a man, shall not keep him in custody beyond a certain time, and they have argued in rejecting it, and given as a reason for rejecting it, that, perhaps, when a man had been arrested and brought before the magistrates, it might not be convenient for them to examine him at that particular time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman challenges me to show him anything in the Act which would give the magistrates authority to detain a witness under these circumstances. I would refer him to Section 13, which enables the authorities to arrest a man and, I presume, to keep him in custody until he has been examined. Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that it would be the duty of the magistrate to drop all other business when a man is arrested, and to proceed to examine him, although he might have 30 or 40 others to examine, or a great many other functions to perform? I do not see anything of that kind in the section. I see that, as a Court of Justice, considering this section and the section of the Petty Sessions Act to which I have referred, the authorities will fairly conclude that the intention of the Legislature was that when the man had been arrested, it was to be in the power of the Government or the Executive to keep him in custody until a convenient time came to examine him. If the Government will make it clear that it will be the duty of the magistrate to examine a man the moment he is brought up in custody, I shall be satisfied; but either of these two things is necessary—namely, that this Amendment should be accepted, or that some Proviso should be inserted declaring that a man should be examined the moment he is brought up in custody before the Resident Magistrate who is conducting the inquiry.
  MR. HOLMES: The section of the Petty Sessions Act to which the hon. Member refers, and under which the procedure he is describing takes place, has been the law of the land for 36 years, and during the whole of that time, so far as I know, no complaint has been made of its operation. I venture to say that during these 36 years it would be impossible to point to a case where a man has been detained over night under the circumstances described. The magis-
  1540
  trate has the power to issue a warrant and to arrest a person, and to have him examined before him. I do not mean to say that the magistrate must examine him immediately, but he must examine him within a short time of his arrest, and if he is not able to conduct that examination, he has no power on earth to do anything but to direct the man's discharge. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give an instance during the last 35 or 36 years in which that which he complains of has been done. Of course, I do not mean to say that the law may not have been abused and that wrong may not have been done in some individual instances; but, of course, we cannot provide against action on the part of those who may choose to break the law. They will be amenable to the punishments which are provided against infringements of Acts of Parliament. I may point out that the English and Irish law upon this point is exactly the same.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I cannot understand the object of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland refusing the acceptance of this Amendment. I will show how inconveniently his plan works out, and how much more convenient will be found that suggested by the hon. Member for Cork. I do not mean to say that it will be more convenient for the magistrate, but that it will certainly be so for the unfortunate man who is brought up to give evidence. Suppose a man is brought up in the vicinity of Glenbeigh, he would have to be taken over 25 miles for the purpose of giving evidence, and he probably would not come before the magistrate before 6 o'clock at night. It would then be too late to examine him that day, and what I want to know is what would be done under such circumstances—would the man be discharged then and there? If he were discharged, then what would be the use of arresting him? Under this Amendment the course adopted would be to take the witness before the nearest local magistrate, and not necessarily to take him before the magistrate conducting the inquiry in the first instance. Before the local magistrate he would be bound over or enter into his recognizances to appear before the magistrate conducting the inquiry at a time and place mentioned. Then there is this to bear in

  1541
  mind, the police might get instructions to arrest a man for the purpose of examination, and might not be able to find him until an hour in the evening, at any rate, not before 5 o'clock, and when they bring him up it might be too late for the magistrate to examine him. I maintain that the witness would be saved a great deal of unnecessary annoyance and trouble by the acceptance of this Amendment.
  MR. HOLMES: My point is that while this Amendment is altogether unnecessary, it would impose a burden upon the unfortunate man hon. Members are anxious to protect. It would impose upon him the necessity of entering into his recognizances, while, under the provision as it stands, it will be necessary to discharge him if the magistrate is not in a position to examine him at once.
  MR. JOICEY: I scarcely understand the opposition of the Government in this matter, but so far as I can make out the practice in England is this, that usually a warrant is only issued in the event of a summons not being attended to. Is it the intention of the Government that a summons should be issued for a witness to attend at the Court, and in the event of that not being obeyed that a warrant shall be issued, or is it intended that a warrant shall be issued in the first instance?
  MR. HOLMES: The hon. Member cannot I think have been present during the discussion which has taken place upon this point, or he would have heard my explanation, that the law upon this subject is precisely the same in England and Ireland.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has challenged mo to give him an instance of the exercise of the Potty Sessions Act, in a sense unfavourable to the position which he has taken up. I am not in a position to give him any such ease, but the reason I cannot give a precedent is because there is no precedent for the action of the Government. I never heard of an Executive attempting to put in force this extraordinary power to arrest a witness in the first instance on a warrant, without some person being charged with an offence. I must also point out that, because the administration of the ordinary law appears to
  1542
  have been conducted in an unobjectionable manner it does not follow that the magistrates to whom the administration of the new coercive law will be entrusted will not exercise their powers in a harsh and oppressive manner. The question to be decided by the Committee is this, would the Government, as the section at present stands, have the power to detain a witness for, practically speaking, an indefinite time—so long as the summons was continued? With great respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, I hold that there is great danger that the Irish Courts will hold that such power exists under this Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says "No"—he says it is not the intention of the Government that such powers should exist. If he does not wish them to exist, and if it is not the intention of the Government that this shall be the law, I ask him to make his intention plain. I ask him to make it clear within the four corners of the Act, that it is not the intention of the Government, who are the framers of this Bill, that this power should be conferred upon the magistrates. If that is done, I will cease to press my Amendment—I will sit down in a moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, it is not the intention of the Government that a witness shall be detained over night. Will he then insert a Proviso in this section to the effect, that if a witness is not examined on the day of his arrest, he shall be discharged? If he does that I will withdraw my Amendment in favour of his Proviso. I should be glad to accept any such Amendment as that—will he propose it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Really, if we are to deal with all these questions, we might as well set about writing a text-book on criminal practice. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, who does not seem to me to have a proper appreciation of the clause as it at present stands. Where it is shown that a certain individual is likely to be able to give information of a valuable character, a warrant may be issued, and if the inquiry is not complete that day the witness will have to attend at the next sitting. That is the practice in this country with regard to summonses. My view of the matter

  1543
  is that it will do considerable harm and no good whatever to endeavour to make a special point in Acts of this kind of provisions which are in operation, and which are very well known. All I can say is that it is much better to adhere to an Act which has existed, as the Act of 1851, for 36 years, in respect of which the practice is perfectly well known. I cannot see any authority for putting a man in prison simply because he has not been examined. There is no parallel whatever between that case and the case of a man who is committed for contempt. I can only repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has said—namely, that no reason has been shown for the admission of this Amendment. If there was any ground for it I should admit it at once. I am anxious to put in what is necessary, but I do not think we should attempt to incorporate in a measure rules and practices which already exist.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Unfortunately the practice in Ireland is not at all as well settled as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have us believe, and, with the greatest respect, I venture to differ from him as to the law as it at present exists. I cannot accept it as he has laid it down. The Government say that under the Petty Sessions Act as it stands at present, if the authorities thought it necessary to arrest a witness under a warrant, if they had brought him for examination, and if the examination had not terminated on the day he was arrested, they would be bound to discharge him and re-arrest him on another day.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: If he did not come forward again.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Yes; if he did not come forward again. I contend that the Courts in Ireland will, without the slightest hesitation, if the authorities think it necessary to arrest a witness at all under these circumstances—I mean where it is declared that there is danger of a witness absconding and running away in order to avoid giving information—I say the Courts would not have the slightest hesitation in taking measures to prevent a man running away when his evidence was only half given. As the law stands, under the Petty Session Act, it is plain that if a witness is brought in under arrest, the authorities
  1544
  have decided to arrest him, and not summon him, if his depositions are not completed on the day he is arrested, they have abundant power to keep him in custody until the depositions are completed. That is the state of things under the existing law, and I say that it will be greatly aggravated under this new law.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to point out what seems to me to be one reason why this Amendment is necessary. We have been dealing, so far, with a single case during this discussion—of the possible single case of one witness being brought up for examination; but let us suppose a case where many witnesses will be examined. Let us suppose a case of alleged conspiracy, and that an investigation is opened for the purpose of getting information concerning that conspiracy. Let us suppose also that the authorities of the district imagine that a number of witnesses are likely to abscond in order to avoid being examined. Naturally, under these circumstances, the magistrate, desiring to get information, would issue summonses for the attendance, it might be of 30, 40, or 50 persons. It is reasonable to suppose that these 30, 40, or 50 persons could not be examined in one day. Then what is to be done? I contend that it is to the advantage of the Government themselves that they should have the power to arrest these men under warrant, and to allow them to go about their business on sufficient security being given that they will attend for examination at the time and place mentioned in the warrant. This will be an advantage to the Government, and it will also be an advantage to the witnesses themselves. If the Government have not the power, and do not take the power, to issue these warrants, where it is quite on the cards and probable that 49 out of the 50 men may abscond, they will have to put up with whatever information one man can afford them. But if they take the power, and the safeguard is not put in that these men are to be allowed out on bail, they can detain in custody and put in prison the 49 men, and they would inflict great inconvenience upon these people. There is another way in which it might be worked. It very often happens in the administration of such an Act as this that policemen, and

  1545
  officials and the Executive generally use it in a capricious fashion. Very often the names of the people as witnesses are put in by policemen in a bundle, and this is done by policemen for the purpose of inflicting injury upon persons against whom they have a grudge. It might be in the power of a policeman to inflict a serious and possibly a permanent injury upon a man in his business or profession by taking him up and putting him in prison, and keeping him from his family and his employment for a long period. I think there is good and sufficient reason established for inserting this Amendment, having due regard, as I say, to the interests of the Government, and also to the safety of witnesses who may be injured in their employment or otherwise. I think, therefore, that the hon. Member for Cork would be fully justified in forcing this Amendment on the consideration of the Government. I admit that in the carrying of measures of this kind we very often have assurances from the Front Ministerial Bench that they will not be used capriciously. They have the best intentions in the world, no doubt; they are very plausible; no doubt they do all they can to get Bills passed without a murmur. But what do all these good intentions amount to when the law comes to be administered by the officials in Ireland? We have often had the characters of these officials before Committees and before this House. The character of these people in Ireland is well known to the House, and in regard for its own legislation it ought to safeguard the proper administration of the Acts it passes. I say, that taking these things into account—bearing in mind the defective administration of the law in our country—we are entitled to throw very grave doubt on good intentions, at any rate to look with a serious amount of suspicion upon the good intentions expressed by the Government during the passage of these measures. The Attorney General for England, the Attorney General for Ireland, and the Government generally may have credit given to them for the good intentions they express; but we ought not to be satisfied with these expressions, and we should avail ourselves of the power while it is in our hands of amending this Act as we conceive it requires to be amended. I
  1546
  trust my hon. Friend the Member for Cork will press his Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: I hope my hon. Friend will take a Division upon this Amendment, and that we shall have that Division very soon. I admit that when we deal with the Attorney General for England we always get a straightforward and fair answer, and that every argument that he has he states fairly and openly. We know after he has expressed his opinion it is no use debating with him further; we know that he has nothing at the back of his head that he has refrained from putting before the Committee. On what grounds has he refused this Amendment? Because it merely states what the existing procedure is. According to the Attorney General for Ireland, if a warrant is issued, it will only apply to the examination of the witness on the day for which the warrant is issued, and would have no application if it was necessary to examine the man on a second day. Well, even admitting for the purpose of argument that this Amendment does embody the existing law, I would ask the Committee to recollect that this Act is to be administered by Resident Magistrates, who are for the most part altogether ignorant of law. These gentlemen are very largely taken from professions in which very little knowledge of the law exists. The nature of their lives has precluded them from acquiring any such knowledge, and we must remember that the only power we shall have of checking these gentlemen will be by going before the Court of Criminal Appeal, which means going before the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland. Well, Sir, I know it is against the Order of this House for a Member to say any thing derogatory to the Judges, or to express an adverse opinion of our legal tribunals. I regret that that is the fact, but I am bound to obey that rule, and, therefore, I will refrain from characterizing the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland by terms which I should be inclined to use were it competent for me to express my opinion openly. I will only say that the appeal will lie in a Court which we regard as having very little sympathy with the mass of the population of Ireland, and a Court which cannot be said to have the least claim to popularity. If, as the

  1547
  Government say, the provisions contained in this clause are already in the existing law, I would impress upon them the necessity of laying down distinctly and clearly the extent of these provisions, so that the Resident Magistrate, may not he able to misunderstand them.
  MR. MOLLOY: I think, with reference to the statement which has just now been made by the Attorney General, that it goes far to settle this question. I do not wish to discuss the legal point with the hon. and learned Gentleman whose criminal knowledge must necessarily be much more extensive than mine. I merely wish to ask him for a decided statement upon this point. Will the warrant be spent at the end of the first examination—supposing the witness is brought up under a warrant—at G o'clock when the Court closes? Will the witness be free or will he not? If he will, we shall be perfectly satisfied. But if, on the other hand, the warrant does not end at 6 o'clock, or if it is not spent in one day's examination and extends over to the next day, what will become of the witness between the hour of G o'clock in the evening of the first day and 10 o'clock of the morning of the next day? I am bringing the point down to the very smallest compass. We want to know during the interval between the examination on the first day and the second day whether the witness will be sot at liberty or kept in custody under the authority of the warrant. If the witness is kept in custody between the hours of 6 o'clock at night and 10 o'clock in the morning, is there any reason for saying that the same process will not go on from day to day until the witness becomes practically a prisoner? Is there to be any limit in point of time, or are the Resident Magistrates to be allowed to keep witnesses in custody just as long as they may think it necessary to keep on the examinations? I ask the Attorney General for England to answer me upon this point. I desire an answer from him, although in saying so I do not wish to appear discourteous to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. But I have been discussing this matter with the English Attorney General, whose knowledge of law, as I say, is necessarily much more extensive than my own. Of course, if the virtue of the warrant is not spent
  1548
  on the first day, then our contention is that the witness virtually becomes a prisoner for an unlimited period, and that accordingly the Bill requires amendment.
  MR. HOLMES: It does not require a very extensive knowledge of law to answer the hon. Member's question.
  MR. MOLLOY: I did not say you could not answer it.
  MR. HOLMES: I have answered this question more than once. There is no power whatever vested in a magistrate who has a witness brought before him to do more than examine him. The moment the examination ceases, the magistrate must discharge the witness. If, for instance, he ceases to examine at 6 or half-past 6 in the evening, the witness may walk away perfectly free, the magistrate having no right to detain him. No doubt the magistrate will have the power, if necessary, to continue the examination after 6 o'clock, because as hon. Members are aware, we have taken care to provide for cases in which it may not be possible for examinations to commence before 6 o'clock, and where it may be absolutely necessary that they should be continued over that hour. It is certain that a magistrate having begun an examination must go on with it. When an examination ceases either permanently or for a time the magistrate has no power to detain the witness.
  MR. MOLLOY: The warrant is spent.
  MR. HOLMES: Entirely spent.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Is it competent for the authorities to issue a warrant on the day the man is to be examined, or is it necessary that the warrant should be issued on a day before the examination is to take place? It may not be possible for the witness to be examined on the day he is taken up; and I think, therefore, the Amendment ought to be inserted in order to enable the witness to get his liberty if it is impossible for the examination to take place on the day the warrant is issued.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the Government agree to insert words in this clause on Report to make the view they have expressed to-day perfectly clear? When we recollect the character of tribunal, we shall see the necessity of having everything put right. We know the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is laughing in his sleeve at us, and that makes it necessary for us to scan every line of this measure, and to take care that

  1549
  the good intentions of the Government shall be carried out and that the course to be followed by the gentlemen who will preside upon the Judicial Bench shall be very clearly marked out.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I should like to know if the examination is to be continued on the second day, whether it will be necessary for a second warrant to be issued.
  MR. HOLMES: I think that the general experience we have had of the working of the ordinary law shows that witnesses who attend upon a warrant if their examination is not finished on the first day put in an appearance on a second day as a matter of course. If, however, under this Bill a witness should not appear on the second day, it will be necessary to enforce his attendance with a second warrant.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Could he abscond in the meantime?
  MR. HOLMES: No doubt he could if he chose.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: After what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said it would be idle for me to go to a Division. At the same time I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the desirability of introducing words into the clause to make the matter perfectly clear. This Act, as has been frequently pointed out, will have to be administered by the Resident Magistrates and the Courts of Law, and it is by no means clear that they would take the same view of this subject as the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Yes; I ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Do you, Mr. Courtney, rule out my Amendment 75a—
  "Where at the date when any inquiry under this section is held any person shall be charged with the offence in reference to which such inquiry has been held, such person or his solicitor or counsel shall be entitled to attend such inquiry, and to cross-examine any witnesses examined thereat."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; it is a separate sub-section, and will form a new clause. The hon. Member can proceed with 75c, which is a Proviso.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Then, Sir, I beg leave to move in line 23, after "thereto," to insert—
  "Provided that a warrant to commit any person to prison for refusing to answer any question or questions put to him at any inquiry under this section, shall specify the offence in reference to which the inquiry has been held, and shall set forth the question or questions for refusing to answer which such person has been, committed to prison, and in any legal proceedings which may be taken by any such person in reference to or arising out of such warrant, or his committal to prison, it shall be competent for the court in which such proceedings are taken to examine into the circumstances under which such persons were committed to prison, and such warrant was issued, and to review the order of the resident magistrate holding such inquiry, and examine and ascertain whether he was warranted or authorised in committing any such person to prison, or whether such committal was a proper exercise of his discretion; and for such purpose the court may hear any legal evidence which may be offered, and, in particular, may refer to the shorthand notes of the inquiry."
  This is an attempt to put into words the pledge the Attorney General has given us over and over again in these debates—one which has been relied upon frequently. I will not argue the matter, because I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 23, after "thereto," insert—" Provided that a warrant to commit any person to prison for refusing to answer any question or questions put to him at any inquiry under this section, shall specify the offence in reference to which the inquiry has been hold, and shall set forth the question or questions for refusing to answer which such person has been committed to prison, and in any legal proceedings which may be taken by any such person in reference to or arising out of such warrant, or his committal to prison, it shall be competent for the Court in which such proceedings are taken to examine into the circumstances under which such person was committed to prison, and such warrant was issued, and to review the order of the resident magistrate holding such inquiry, and examine and ascertain whether he was warranted or authorised in committing any such person to prison, or whether such committal was a proper exercise of his discretion; and for such purpose the Court may hear any legal evidence which may be offered, and, in particular, may refer to the shorthand notes of the inquiry."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. HOLMES: It is impossible to accept this Amendment. I will put on

  1551
  the Paper this evening an Amendment to provide that the warrant shall specify the particular questions in respect of refusal to answer which the witness has been committed to prison. It will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning. Beyond that, it will be perfectly impossible for us to go. The Amendment I propose will give the Court above the opportunity of deciding whether the committal was within the jurisdiction of the magistrate who issued the warrant.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The alleged "concession" of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly illusory. According to his own statement, all this will do will be to express in a sub-section in this measure what is already the existing law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that when an inferior Court commits a person for contempt of that Court, it is necessary that the warrant should specify—
  MR. W. REDMOND: I wish, Mr. Chairman, to call your attention to the loud and continuous conversation and laughter of hon. Gentlemen opposite, which. I can assure you, Sir, is greatly interfering with hon. Members on this side of the House who are endeavouring to hoar and understand what is going on.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure hon. Members will concur with me in thinking that the speak or ought to be heard.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I was saying, Sir, that, in my opinion, the concession of the Government amounted to no more than a promise that they would embody in this Bill that which is the existing law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman states that the existing law is that an inferior Court shall set forth in its warrant what its jurisdiction is, in order to commit for contempt. I contend, Sir, that a warrant which should show—that should necessarily show—the two great elements in my Amendment—namely, the nature of the inquiry that is to be held, and what the question was that the witness refused to answer. The object of the Amendment is that a person committed to prison should go behind the warrant and inquire into any legal evidence as to whether or not the magistrates had acted properly. I do not think the Attorney General has offered any argument against that being done. What is the value of
  1552
  the concession of the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
  MR. MAHONY: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order; it is perfectly and absolutely impossible for us to hear what the hon. Member is saying. The conversation and interruption which is going on on the other side of the House is deliberate.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) will speak a little louder?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: My contention is this—the Government has accepted an Amendment from this quarter of the House providing that a shorthand writer shall attend, and shall take notes of what goes on at these secret inquiries; and what I say is, that that concession dwindles down to the smallest value if they stop in now and say that, though they have these shorthand notes, the person committed to prison for refusing to answer shall not have the the power of making the smallest use of them. That is really the whole question at issue. Is a prisoner committed for refusing to answer questions under this clause to be in a position that the warrant of the Court which commits him to gaol is to be final and conclusive, and that no Court of Law is to have the power of going behind that warrant and ascertaining whether the Resident Magistrate has acted properly or not? Permit me to point out that nothing could be easier than for the Resident Magistrate holding an inquiry, no matter how illegally he had acted, to draw his warrant in such a form that no Court would go behind it and inquire into its propriety or illegality. All the Resident Magistrate would have to do in order to protect his warrant from investigation would be to say that the question put to the witness was a perfectly proper one, but that the witness had refused to answer it. Unless such an Amendment as this I now propose is put in. it will not be in the power of the Court to ascertain whether or not the Resident Magistrate was to blame; and we ask, seeing that the Government have provided for the taking of shorthand notes, that the person committed to prison for refusing to answer the Resident Magistrate shall have the opportunity of examining those notes, and of bringing them before the Court in which he questions the action of the Resident Magis-

  1553
  trate. We claim that on going into the Court the witness may get whatever benefit it is possible to derive from the shorthand notes.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: There is a vast difference between a trial in a public Court and one of these examinations, and between a witness refusing to answer in a private inquiry and refusing to answer questions put publicly. A person examined in secret may be committed to prison upon a warrant on its face perfectly right. No one will know what has taken place at a secret inquiry unless the shorthand notes are forthcoming. No one would dream of concocting a warrant; but I can imagine a witness exciting the anger of a Resident Magistate, and I can imagine that Resident Magistrate committing a witness, and finding when he afterwards cooled down that he had gone a little too far in committing the witness, and I can then understand him in writing out the committal—the witness being in custody—putting a colour to the proceedings in order to justify his hasty action. In writing out a record of the proceeding it is plain that he may find that he has done something wrong, having acted in a passion, or in haste, or without due consideration. I ask are there no means of protecting witnesses? Is there no Court to which they can appeal to take all the circumstances into consideration, and to say whether or not they have been wrongly treated? If the Attorney General's Amendment is inserted then all the magistrate has to do is to be keen enough to state in his warrant that he has put certain questions. But he may have put other questions besides those he records, or the witness may have answered a particular question in another form. The witness himself may have got angry, and may have made some hasty observation, or may have acted hastily, and the magistrate may have committed him, although his offence was not one in any way warranting such a punishment. What we ask in this Amendment is not whether or not the warrant is right on the face of it, but whether the action of the magistrate in committing the witness to prison was a proper and right exercise of his discretion under the circumstances. For this purpose we ask not that the prisoner shall see the shorthand notes, but
  1554
  that the Court shall have power to examine them. My hon. Friend's Amendment clearly mentions that it is only the Court that is to have power to examine the shorthand writer's notes. Undoubtedly, what is now proposed is an amendment of the existing law. Undoubtedly, if the warrant is right on the face of it, the Court before whom it comes for consideration should be able to go into the question of the discretion of the Resident Magistrate, and we do ask that a provision should be made to meet special and exceptional proceedings which may take place on one of these special and exceptional inquiries which. would not occur in an open Court.
  MR. HOLMES: I wish to make this matter as clear as I possibly can. The hon. Gentleman, so far as I understand it, has first of all suggested that the magistrate should make out a warrant which in form would be perfectly correct, but which would not correctly represent the circumstances of the inquiry. In such a case there would absolutely be no protection for the magistrate. If he wilfully falsified the facts and spread them out in a dishonest form, no Judge or jury would hesitate to declare that his conduct was improper. No Judge or jury would hesitate to condemn such a magistrate; therefore we have a protection against the evil the hon. Member wishes to provide against in the ordinary law as it stands. A case which may arise may be this. A magistrate may commit a man without having proper jurisdiction to do so—for instance, he might commit a man for refusing to answer a question which, he had no right to ask. Now, the warrant, assuming that it has been properly prepared, will show the question that has been put, and it will be for the Court above to say whether or not the magistrate had jurisdiction to ask the question. Suppose that the warrant truthfully sets out the matter, and there is no ground for saying that the magistrate has acted maliciously; under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman says that the Court above should review the discretion of the magistrates. I say that we should not accept any such Amendment as that. It would be contrary to the principle upon which all our law is based, and I do not think there is a single English lawyer in the House who would agree to it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The difficulty I have in understanding the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is this, that it is supposed that the question put to the witness will be recorded in the warrant. I take it that that would be very valuable if there were any means by which the Court above could review the propriety of putting that question. As I understand it, there is no question which cannot be put so long as it is not entirely relative to a totally different matter to that under investigation. You are dealing with the analogy of a Court of Law when there are certain questions that are proper and others that are not proper according to the Law of Evidence. If the latter class of questions are put in a Court of Law, you can appeal to the Court above; but it is the very essence of this secret inquiry, that the Rules of Evidence do not apply to it. Therefore, I do not see what there is upon which you can appeal to the Court above. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said just now that the Court will not be allowed to review the discretion of the magistrate; but, unfortunately, the discretion of the magistrate is extremely wide—in fact, there seems to be no limitation to it whatever, and, therefore, there will be no limitation to the questions the magistrate can put to the witness.
  MR. MOLLOY: Will the Government state what objection there can be to the Judge before whom a case is brought being allowed to see the shorthand notes? The fact of their being submitted to the Judge will not bring them before the public—the reporters will not see them; consequently, they will not be published, and they will not come to the knowledge of those people from whom it is desirable to withhold the information which has been obtained. Surely the Judge who has to try the case should be allowed to see the notes and the context of the particular sentence in regard to which the appeal is made. It is not very difficult for anyone here to state a ease at once where it would be necessary for the Judge to see the shorthand notes in order to get at the context. If I gave the Committee an illustration of the point in question, both the Attorney Generals would see that a particular
  1556
  sentence and a particular phrase may not give the slightest information whatever to the Judge who has to try the case, and before whom the appeal is brought. What is the objection to making this concession? Will the Government state out frankly to the House what objection they have to allowing the Judge who has to try the case access to the whole of the evidence? Why do you say the case has to be tried, and then lay down that the Judge has not to have the whole of the evidence before him, but only such part of it as the particular magistrate whose conduct is in question chooses to send before him? This is very like a man being tried for a crime, and the accused laying down what information shall be placed before the Court. Will the Attorney General for Ireland say frankly what objection there is to the Judge seeing the shorthand notes if he thinks proper to do so? What objection is there to the Judge having all the information which, in his discretion, will enable him to come to a just decision? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer that point? If he will, no doubt we shall be able to make further progress with the Bill.
  MR. P. J. POWER: It is evident that the Government are afraid to allow the conduct of the Resident Magistrates to come under the review of any Court. We have contended that they are incompetent to undertake these powers, and the action of the Government confirms that. What is the object of going to the great expense of having complete shorthand notes and this inquisitorial inquiry if they are not to be seen by anyone? What is the object, if the Court of Queen's Bench, or any Court to which the appeal would lie, has not an opportunity of seeing these notes—what would be the use of them? It would be much better that they should never be taken at all.
  MR. CHANCE: The Attorney General for Ireland should recollect the case of Father Kelleher. In the Court of Queen's Bench it was decided that since the question was taken down, on the face of the warrant, the Court had no power to inquire into the relevancy or irrelevancy of certain questions put under the Bankruptcy Act in open day. There was a protection in that case, be-cause the whole body of public opinion could be brought to bear upon the

  1557
  matter. There is a great distinction to be drawn between that case and the present case. But the decision in Father Kelleher's case shows that the statement in the warrant will be no protection to the witness; so that, so far as that is concerned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have saved his breath, and might have refrained from proposing what he called a concession. It is clear that in the case of this inquiry into a crime committed by some person—or by no person, for there may be no one accused—there are no other means by which you can ascertain the relevancy of a question, and that, therefore, the Court should be allowed to consider what previous questions had been put, in order to discover the course which the inquiry ought to have taken, and to enable the Judge to say whether the magistrate's jurisdiction had been fairly exercised.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: There are two points before us—one is what the warrant should contain, and the other is what the Superior Court should have before it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) says the Superior Court should have before it, not only the warrant, but every point that can be brought before it in evidence. That is not the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. [Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Yes, it is.] Anyone who can read the English language will say that what the Amendment provides is that the warrant should set forth the question. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) that the Court should have before it the shorthand writer's notes of the evidence; but the suggestion that they should appear on the warrant is absurd.
  MR. CHANCE: May I recall the hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Staveley Hill's) attention to the Amendment—
  "Provided that a warrant to commit any person to prison for refusing to answer any question or questions put to him at any inquiry under this section, shall specify the offence in reference to which the inquiry has been held, and shall set forth the question or questions for refusing to answer which," &c.
  The other questions are not to be set forth; it is only the precise question for refusing to answer which he is sent to
  1558
  prison. That is conceded by the Law Officers of the Crown, and I now ask them to state whether it would be necessary to put anything on the warrant but the precise question and answer?
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: The Government have agreed that the question should be set forth on the warrant. I go with hon. Gentlemen opposite as far as that, but I do not agree with the Amendment that anything else should be set forth.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think we may come to a very clear understanding that the warrant should contain nothing but the question and answer. Then the question is whether the Court which is to determine the imprisonment should have full seizing of all that has happened. I understand my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) to contend that the Court should have full possession of the circumstances attending the question in order to judge rightly; that the Court should not be in possession of the bare statement of the question only, but of the matters under which the question arose, and, in point of fact, of what took place in the Court of Inquiry. Everybody knows that in the case of an ordinary proceeding before a common tribunal, the shorthand notes or the Judge's notes would be available to show whether the evidence is admissible. That is all that is asked here. I understand that hitherto the Government have refused to consent that the shorthand writer's notes should go before the Court. In that case, they practically agree that the Court is not to know what has passed. How is the witness who is to be committed to prison to satisfy the Court above that he has not had justice done him? Upon affidavit, is it? If upon affidavit, why is not the affidavit to be accompanied by the most authentic document? I should say that in any tribunal that would be the natural and proper course. It has been said, and said quite truly, that a magistrate—in repeating it I do not wish to attribute any evil motive to any magistrate—will fight very hard to maintain his decision, and unless you are able when you are appealing to a Court in Banco to bring before them everything that has occurred, you will have very little chance of success. You cannot judge of the whole transaction from the mere words of the warrant. You cannot judge what gave

  1559
  rise to the question how the magistrate came to put such a question, and what are the surrounding circumstances. The authentic evidence of that is the shorthand writer's notes. What are those notes for? Are they only for the Government to use when it suits them, and to disregard them when they are adverse to the Government's view? Why should they not be at the service of the witness who is affected by them, who is committed upon the transactions recorded in them? The Attorney General for Ireland made a very fair and proper concession in agreeing that the question should be put upon the warrant; but surely the complement of that is that if there is to be an appeal, the Court which is to hear it should know all the circumstances.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) knows as well as I do that a witness may apply for a writ of certiorari, and that if he can establish a case not only the warrant but the statements which are contained in the transcript of the shorthand writer's notes are at once removed. That is one remedy under the existing law. Another remedy is that he may bring an action against the magistrate if he thinks, of course, he has been unjustly treated. The reason why we object to the Amendment is that it deals with entirely different subject-matter. Let me read the last portion of the Amendment—
  "And in any legal proceedings which may he taken by any such person in reference to or arising out of such warrant, or his committal to prison, it shall be competent for the court in which such proceedings are taken to examine into the circumstances under which such person was committed to prison, and such warrant was issued, and to review the order of the resident magistrate holding such inquiry, and examine and ascertain whether he was warranted or authorized in committing any such person to prison, or whether such committal was a proper exercise of his discretion."
  Now, we entirely object to that, because we do not profess at all to give an appeal as regards the discretion of the magistrate. If a magistrate makes an illegal order it can be quashed by the High Court of Justice, and the shorthand writer's notes and the order can be made available according to certain legal rules now in existence. We take our stand upon that; we shall not go further.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I am really amazed at the representation of what the existing law is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has ventured to give the Committee. He states, in the first place, that the man who is committed to prison for contempt would have a remedy by certiorari. If I read the provisions of the Justices' Protection Act aright, there is no remedy in such a matter as this unless the witness can show express malice. What is the use of a witness bringing an action if, when he has brought it, the magistrate pleads he acted in good faith and claims that the action shall be dismissed? I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to show by any authority that the law is as he has stated. I assert, and I challenge contradiction, that it will not be competent for a witness who was committed to prison under this section to bring an action until he has by one procedure or another quashed the warrant under which he was committed to gaol. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that if the witness applies by certiorari, the order of the Court would be that not merely the warrant of committal, but the shorthand writer's notes, would be returned into the Queen's Bench. I challenge that statement. I assert such is not the case, and that my Amendment is drawn to provide that such should be the law. If a witness should proceed by certiorari, the only thing which the Court of Queen's Bench would have power to return into Court for the purpose of being inquired into would be the mere warrant of committal, and to obtain an order for certiorari the witness would have nothing but his individual affidavit, which would be valueless if contradicted by the shorthand writer's notes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman deals with the evidence raised by this Amendment as if it was solely a question of giving the man who was committed to prison the right of action. It is nothing of the kind. The important object of this Amendment is to enable a man committed to gaol to got out of gaol if the magistrate has acted improperly. The answer of the Attorney General for Ireland really amounts to this—that the Government do not intend that there shall be any appeal from the order of the Resident Magistrate. The Govern-

  1561
  ment are determined that the proceedings of the Resident Magistrates shall be open to no question and no review. They are determined not to submit to the light of day what goes on at these star-chamber inquiries through which all the people of a country side may be sent to gaol without any appeal. We have a right to expect that the Attorney General for Ireland should not, as I think he does, misrepresent to the Committee what the real state of the law is, and what the condition of the unfortunate witnesses committed to prison under this section would be.
  MR. CHANCE: I deny that by certiorari the shorthand notes can be brought up, but even supposing they can, I ask the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) if he is of opinion that the notes can be used to contradict any statement whatever in the warrant? If a civil action were brought and an application were made for the production of the shorthand notes, every one knows perfectly well that the answer of the magistrate would be that the notes were not his property but of the Government, and they were privileged, it would be further said that the inquiry was strictly secret, and that by this Act it was not intended that everything taking place before the tribunal should see the light of day in other Courts. I cannot see what necessity there is for giving the magistrate the protection which is sought for him. I trust I shall receive an answer to the question I have asked, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Staveley Hill), who for the first time since this debate has opened has given us some assistance, will continue to give us his assistance and encourage us to fight our case.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chance) I shall do all I can to prevent coercion being improperly applied to Ireland. But there is nothing sought to be given by the Amendment that is not given under the existing law. If I thought there was I should vote for the Amendment most heartily. I believe the witness has every protection under the existing law he can possibly have.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR RICHARD WEBSTER): In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), I have to say I am most distinctly of
  1562
  opinion that on certiorari the shorthand notes can be brought up and referred to. The practice is that an affidavit must be made setting forth that the warrant is bad for certain specified reasons. The deponent can make any statement he thinks fit, and then the Court will be able to judge whether the warrant has been properly framed. If certiorari is applied for all the proceedings will be returned. That is an entirely different matter from giving the Court power of review. It has nothing to do with the question whether or not a magistrate acted within his jurisdiction or beyond his jurisdiction. We do intend that when the question is one which it is competent for the magistrate to put, and the witness says—''I decline to answer," the magistrate shall be protected.
  MR. CHANCE: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman of opinion that on certiorari the shorthand notes can be used as evidence to contradict or explain the statements in the warrant?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Most certainly they could.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: It is perfectly idle to tell the Committee that the writ of certiorari is open to a witness. It may be open to him to bring an action afterwards.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 256: Majority 101. [Div. List, No. 127.]
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I rise to move to insert after "thereto"—
  "Provided, That if at any inquiry held under this section it is proposed to commit any witness to prison for refusing to answer any question or questions, such witness shall thereupon he entitled to he heard by counsel or solicitor in case he shall so desire."
  I have no desire to weary the Committee by arguing before it a matter which has been, at any rate, partly discussed on a previous Amendment. The Committee has decided that it will not allow a solicitor or barrister to represent a witness at an inquiry. I would, however, appeal to the Committee to allow a witness, before being committed to gaol, to be heard by counsel or solicitor, so that his case may be properly presented.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 23, after "thereto," insert—"Provided, That if at any inquiry held under this section it is proposed to commit any witness to prison for refusing to answer any ques-

  1563
  tion or questions, such witness shall thereupon be entitled to be heard by counsel or solicitor in case he shall so desire."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOMES): I would point out to the Committee that it has already rejected an Amendment of a similar nature. The result of the adoption of the Amendment would be to give witnesses the power of delaying the proceedings by making application for the assistance of counsel, and by the arguments which counsel would be instructed to use. The whole proceedings would, in fact, be likely to be made ridiculous.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland seems suddenly to have got on a high horse. He says to give a witness the use of counsel would lead to long argument. One would have thought that before the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects is taken away, there should be some sort of argument; but now, forsooth, it is said that we are to go to gaol without argument. Was ever such a position taken up by a legal Gentleman? I can understand the Chief Secretary, who revels in this clause, and laves in it, and steeps himself in the idea of men being sent to gaol without argument, opposing this Amendment; but I must say that I am astonished at the position taken up by the Attorney General for Ireland, who is a lawyer. We say send a man to gaol if you like for refusing to answer reasonable and proper questions; but when you come to questions on which reasonable and proper debate can arise, let that debate take place, and let it be between competent debaters. Let the question as to whether or not you are to send a man to prison for declining to answer improper questions be decided by legal gentlemen. In Scotland, the gentleman who puts the questions, and the gentleman who decides on the propriety of the questions, are legal gentlemen. I ask the Attorney General for England to allow these questions to be decided on argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman objects to argument; but for him to say on behalf of the Government that they will send men to gaol without argument seems to me to be expressing an altogether irrational and uncivilized view.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I have not the smallest objection to argument, but I really think we ought not to be pressed further on this matter when we have already decided that solicitors and barristers are not to be allowed to attend the inquiries held under this section, and when it has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) that it is necessary to give large discretion to the magistrates in the putting of questions. There is no limit to the questions that can be put, provided they have reference to the crime that has been committed. We shall be stultifying our previous decisions if we say now that a counsel or solicitor may be introduced; besides, the acceptance of this proposal will be a direct temptation to a witness to set the whole proceeding at defiance by causing adjournments to take place, and introducing proceedings which are not possible under other sections of the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The Amendment of which I have given Notice deals with the case of a person for whom, I think, the Committee has some regard—namely, a witness who has to be arrested in the first instance, without being summoned. I have observed all through a feeling of considerable hesitation in the Committee with reference to giving absolute discretion to stipendiary and other magistrates, with regard to the arrest of witnesses in the first instance. I observed, and took down carefully, the words of the Attorney General.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Will the hon. Member read the Amendment.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: It says—
  "Provided always, That the warrant 'B. b.' in sub-section mentioned shall not issue in the first instance for the arrest of a witness until oath is made that it is probable that if served with a summons such witness would remove from jurisdiction and would not be forthcoming at such inquiry."
  The words are carefully framed, and I have adopted them with the view of meeting the case mentioned by the Attorney General.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words—"Provided always, That the warrant 'B. b.' in sub-section mentioned shall not

  1565
  issue in the first instance for the arrest of a witness until oath is made that it is probable that if served with a summons such witness would remove from the jurisdiction, and would not he forthcoming at such inquiry."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It seems to me that these words are altogether inconsistent with an Amendment already passed, which applies to these proceedings—Section 13 of the Petty Sessions Act of 1851. We put in that section, at the request of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, and we think, as at present advised, that the present Amendment is inconsistent with that for which we have in that way provided.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I quite agree that if you take out Section 13 of the Petty Sessions Act, and read the words of it, you will perceive that this Amendment is inconsistent with it; but I seek to modify the oath having regard to that Section of the Petty Sessions Act. The information is to be laid before the issue of the warrant, that is to say, the oath is to be taken before the arrest of a person in the first instance, to the effect that it is probable that the witness will not attend to give evidence without being compelled so to do. That is in the 13th section of the Petty Sessions Act, and, as I say, if we consider that section as written out, it is inconsistent with my Amendment; but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that this Committee and Parliament have power to modify that oath by a Proviso. The reason why I am anxious that this alteration should be made is, that I do not believe it is intended by those in charge of the Bill to enable a warrant to issue where it should not. I believe they would be slow to allow power which might be abused, or might be exercised too harshly. I, therefore, took down the words of the Attorney General for Ireland when he mentioned the cases in which a warrant should issue in the first instance—namely, the danger of a witness not attending himself, the danger of a witness removing out of the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and the danger of his not attending without a warrant. These are the words of the Attorney General for Ireland in explaining to the Committee the cases in which a warrant should issue for the attendance of a
  1566
  witness without a summons. I think that the people of Ireland, and especially persons called on to be examined before a tribunal of this sort, are primâ facie entitled to receive a summons. Many people might be seriously inconvenienced by being brought up under a warrant, and I, therefore, think that the ordinary right of witnesses to be summoned to the Court ought to apply. I admit that there are cases in which a person, if summoned, would fly from the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and would, therefore, not be available to give evidence at an inquiry; but those cases will be cases in which it will be made clear to the magistrate, on oath, that there is danger, if a summons is served, of a man absconding or not being forthcoming. Any words which will provide a better safeguard than that which is already contained in the Petty Sessions Act ought, I think, to be adopted by the Committee. I should like to tell the Committee what is the safeguard provided against the unjust and harsh exercise of this power of arresting a witness in the first instance, and what is the extent to which it goes in the original Act. A person may swear, for instance, that a witness will not attend without being compelled, though he may know very well that the witness will not run away. He may be able very well to swear that he does not believe the witness would attend, though he would not dream of swearing that the man would run away. He can also very well swear—I would even put this extreme case—to a sort of belief that the witness would not attend, although he might know that if the witness was served with a summons, he would attend, believing himself bound by some honourable obligation to do so—because I know, in my own practice, that there are many men who would submit to a summons, and who would be perfectly willing to give evidence, if summoned, who would not voluntarily attend before an inquiry to give evidence in a particular case. Therefore, it is open to a man to swear the oath in the 13th section of the Petty Sessions Act, and believe that the witness would attend on a summons. But it is altogether unfair not to require that the magistrate should be satisfied in his own mind that the witness will not attend on a summons before granting a warrant. I

  1567
  appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether there is really anything in my Amendment which, if adopted, would frustrate the operation of the Act. I am not wedded to these words; but I must say I do dislike the words in the 13th section of the Petty Sessions Act, which are really no safeguard to a witness.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I really would appeal to the hon. Member to consider what it is he proposes. Re-member we are dealing with a contumacious witness, and the hon. Gentleman proposes to limit the clause by inserting the words "will be removed from jurisdiction, and will not be forthcoming." The words are practically the same as the words "will not attend," but they are all governed by "removed from jurisdiction," and the witness who does not desire to give evidence may hide from the jurisdiction of a magistrate, and may decline to answer a summons and set the ordinary law at defiance; but unless he goes out of the jurisdiction there is no power to servo a warrant. It would be impossible for oath to be made that the witness would be removed from jurisdiction, or that the deponent should know that the man would not come, or that he said he would not come, or something of that kind. If the Act is to be put in force at all, witnesses who it is supposed can give material evidence must not be allowed to evade the inquiry. The Committee will remember that we have accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Member for East Wolver hampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), to the effect that the warrant should be issued in the case of a man whom the magistrate believed capable of giving material evidence, but whom he had reason to believe would not attend. That seems to me to be the proper test in this matter. If the hon. Member cuts that down by providing that, before a warrant shall issue, oath must be taken that the witness will be removed from jurisdiction, and will not be forthcoming, it will make the whole clause nugatory. Unless an affidavit could be made which, practically speaking, could not be made or would not be made in nine cases out of ten, the witnesses would not be forthcoming.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: If it would render the Amendment more acceptable to the
  1568
  hon. and learned Gentleman, I would agree to these words—"will remove from jurisdiction or otherwise will not be forthcoming."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The same objection applies.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I wish to provide that a warrant shall not be issued merely because a person chooses to think that a witness will not attend voluntarily.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Mr. Courtney, the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench are very hard to please. When we draw up Amendments to try and meet their views they say we are endeavouring to turn the Bill upside down and to render it unworkable. The Irish Attorney General came forward and said he could not agree to one Amendment because there are a certain class of witnesses in Ireland who, the moment they got a summons, would abscond. On that proper argument the Committee agreed to allow a warrant to be issued, and all that we now ask is, that that being the reason on which the Committee agreed to allow the witness to be arrested in the first instance, the Committee shall express its reasons in the Bill, and say that only in those cases where there is a danger of the witness absconding a warrant shall be issued. I would press upon the Committee this consideration, that the words used in the Bill are words which would place in the hands of the officials in Ireland a power which they might very grossly abuse. We know very well what will happen if this clause passes as it stands. The Resident Magistrate will get down his warrant from the Attorney General, will go to the nearest sub-inspector, will make out a list of witnesses, and will hand it over to a constable, who will swear an affidavit in the common form, that he has reason to believe the witnesses will not attend, and, therefore, they will all be arrested. We know quite well what is going to happen, and we object that it should be in the power of officials in Ireland to bring about that state of things. The Attorney General for England says it will be impossible for any official to swear that witnesses are going to abscond, or that they will not be forthcoming. It is a great deal easier to say that than to prove it. On referring to the Petty Sessions Act, I find that it requires the

  1569
  officials to swear as to what is in a man's mind—that the police officer shall swear that a certain class of people have their minds made up not to attend. But all we ask is that the officer shall swear, not to what he cannot know, but to what he can know, see, and discover by the exercise of his intelligence—namely, that there is a danger that the witness will abscond if an opportunity is given to him and he is not arrested in the first instance. Now, Mr. Courtney, the Irish officials will have to face this difficulty—that there is the greatest reason to suppose that if the clause is worked as we have every reason to suppose it will be, there will be a very great indisposition among large classes of people in Ireland to come before those inquiries at all. It does not follow that there is any disposition on the part of those people to leave the country; all that it means is that, for certain reasons of a political or other nature, they have made up their minds not to facilitate the working of these inquiries, which they believe to be utterly abominable and detestable. Is it to be said that because they entertain these views any constable may swear "A, B, C, and D, I know, have objections to attend these inquiries, and therefore let them be arrested instead of being summoned?" That would be a gross injustice. If this power is to be exercised, let it be exercised for the reason which the Irish Attorney General gave as an inducement to the Committee to grant the power of arresting witnesses—namely, that there is a danger of the witness absconding and getting out of the jurisdiction of the Court, if he is able to get wind of the inquiry which is to be held. But do not put it on the general statement of some constable that certain persons have an indisposition to attend the inquiries, and that he believes they will not attend. Do not, in the terms of this Bill, enable the officials to arrest a whole country-side without first giving them the privilege of being summoned, and of saying whether or not they will attend the inquiries without arrest. It is quite bad enough that the authorities should have the power of arresting persons who may be quite as respectable as the Resident Magistrate holding the investigation. Do not let them be at the mercy of every ruffian magistrate or policeman who chooses to abuse his power in an offensive manner. Do not
  1570
  let the power be exercised until the danger which the Attorney General for Ireland has pointed out arises—until there is some competent person who knows the facts prepared to swear that if the warrant is not issued there is a danger that the witness will abscond.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONMr. Courtney, this measure was introduced under false pretences, and it has been maintained upon them all along. It should be generally understood that, even in what is popularly called the loyal minority in Ireland, there is a strong and ingrained objection to give evidence at these tribunals, as in other cases. Therefore, in discussing this matter, we may set out with the assumption that every man, woman, and child in Ireland has an objection to give evidence, and therefore it may be taken that the condition of this warrant or thing—I am not a lawyer, and am, therefore, not aware of these technicalities—but the primary condition of this warrant is that witnesses will not attend unless they are compelled to do so. Under these circumstances, the whole argument turns on the meaning which is to be attached to the word "compelled." It has been very properly put by the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty) that the giving of a summons to a witness may be considered as "compelling." Anyone who has attended the Petty Sessions Courts in Ireland, as I have had to do myself on legal business for eight or nine years, knows what I have seen daily, that witnesses are allowed to come in and mix themselves up with cases where, even as witnesses, there is no suspicion against them. All we ask for is, that where there is a reasonable presumption that these witnesses will answer your summons on the receipt of it, you should not, in the first instance, issue a warrant. But we know very well what will be the alternative if the Government maintain their present attitude. It is that the Resident Magistrates will never put themselves to the trouble of issuing a summons. They will spare themselves that trouble, and will do that, which will cause much annoyance in Ireland, and cause many a prolonged debate in this House. They will walk into the field where men are at their spring or harvest work, and tap them on the shoulder, and bring them before

  1571
  these secret tribunals, keeping them day after day, and, perhaps, committing them to prison for contumaciousness. Then there is another point to which I would like to call attention. The Irish people are often accused of being addicted to taking a drop of drink. Now, I ask, is it fair or reasonable that your policeman shall seize a farmer on a market night when he has been drinking, and shall lug him before a magistrate, when, for the purposes of this Bill, if he had been summoned a day or two before, he could have his mind clearly made up, and be able to say what he knows about the subject? The result of your action will be that you will be continually touching a very sore point by your administration of this Bill, The Government set out with a presumption that causes all this friction. They set out with the presumption that the magistrates are just, and will carry out the Bill in a spirit of justice. But we set out with a spirit of distrust. We may be right, or we may be wrong; but we act according to our experience, and we cannot believe in the justice of these magistrates from what we know of them. You cannot blame us when we have had cause to distrust them. Then why do you object to putting into an Act of Parliament words which crystallize your own sentiment as well as our objection? Why is it that you will not have in some form—either in the shape of this Amendment, or in some other form that you may devise yourselves—why is it that you will not be content to put into this Bill a safeguard that a man shall be summoned where it is presumable that he will attend, and why should you give to people whom we allege to be despots the right of exercising all their powers in a despotic spirit? It adds a great deal to the friction which prevails, and to the prolongation of debate night after night, that the Government constantly take up the position that the Resident Magistrates of Ireland are angels who have come down from Heaven. Even from that point of view they are fallen angels, and we ought to be more particular in dealing with them. Any assertion we make against them is not regarded. We allege that they are a class of men prone to tyranny and injustice, and you hold the opposite view. Why is it that you will not allow us the limitations and reservations which you
  1572
  acknowledge are in the spirit of the Bill—why do you not put them in the letter so as to satisfy all objections?
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I will not detain the Committee for more than a minute, but I want to answer the right hon. Gentleman on one point. He put the case of a man having removed himself from the jurisdiction of the Court. In that case a warrant would issue, so that the very case referred to is met by the 13th section. I do not know where we are. I do not know of any possible objection that the right hon. Gentleman has urged against my proposition that is not met by the explanation that the existing law provides for the case. The Committee will decide now on the question whether or not a warrant is to issue at the discretion of the magistrate, without having any satisfactory information, before him in regard to the disposition of the witness. This is a very hard position for the people of Ireland, for any person can at any moment be arrested at the instance of the officials of Dublin Castle. I put the distinction very clearly between those cases and indictable offences. In indictable cases it might be a very great public inconvenience if the witness were not in attendance at the Petty Sessions, because the Assizes might be coming on. I can thoroughly understand how it might be necessary to secure the attendance of a witness for a particular day in an indictable offence, but it is a very different thing where you appoint the day yourselves, and where the next day a warrant might issue if the witness were not forthcoming. These are points on which I ask the Committee to reflect before supporting the Bill as it now stands.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 227: Majority 98.—(Div. List, No. 128.)
  MR. CHANCE: I beg to move the following Amendment, of which I have given private Notice:—
  In page 1, line 23, after "thereto," insert—"Provided, That in no case shall a warrant be issued for the arrest of any female intended to be examined as a witness in the first instance, or until a summons has first been served on such female in manner as in said enactment provided, and disobeyed by her."
  I trust that the Government will see the desirability of a provision of this kind,

  1573
  and will, at any rate, agree to make the neglect of a summons a necessary preliminary to the issue of a warrant in the case of a woman. I think you all agree that no woman, no matter how low she may be in the social scale, shall be permitted to suffer unnecessary indignities; but if the sub-section be adopted without any safeguard, such as that which I have proposed, she will be exposed to great hardship. It may, of course, be said that a woman would be able to evade a summons by getting out of the jurisdiction of the Court by which it is issued; but I would point out that it is not so easy a matter for a woman to get beyond the jurisdiction as it is for many men. In the case of married women, having children and other home ties, such a proceeding would be well-nigh impossible.
  Amendment proposed,
  At end of last Amendment, to insert the words—"Provided, That in no case shall a warrant be issued for the arrest of any female intended to be examined as a witness in the first instance, or until a summons has first been served on such female, in manner as in said enactment provided, and disobeyed by her."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I hope, Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think it necessary to put this question, which, I think, can hardly have been brought seriously before the notice of the Committee. I do not know of any case in our Criminal Law which furnishes a precedent for a provision of this kind, nor can I conceive of any reason being alleged why women should be placed in a different category to men in this connection. The object of the warrant is to prevent the escape of recalcitrant witnesses, and I have no reason to believe that women are less likely to prove recalcitrant than men. Certainly, experience has not shown this to be the ease. In any case, I think hon. Gentlemen will agree that if there was a recalcitrant witness, the fact that she happened to be a woman would be no reason for not issuing a warrant against her. In regard to the argument of the hon. and learned Member, that women are not likely to get out of the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of evading
  1574
  summonses, I would remind him that every woman has not got a family of children.
  MR. CHANCE: I hope this Amendment will be divided upon. It is the very simple question of the nature of the procedure up to the present. It has been decided not to adopt the ordinary rules of procedure in the case of people generally, and this Amendment is but the logical corollary of that decision.
  MR. MARUM: As I have an Amendment on the Paper somewhat in the same direction as that now before the Committee, perhaps I maybe permitted to make a few observations in reply to the Chief Secretary. As the entire clause is derived from, the Scottish jurisprudence, I think it not unnatural that I should make some reference to the enactments relating to that system; and I find that, in accordance with the Law of Scotland, women were not, until a recent period, admissible. Of course, I speak under correction from the Lord Advocate. I do not attempt to say whether that circumstance is owing to any psychological deduction, or whether it is accounted for by the fact of a woman having five ounces of brain matter less than a man; but, whatever the reason may be, certainly the Common Law of Scotland did attach disability to women as witnesses. Therefore, it is not unnatural that I should refer to the point, when we are going back on the Scottish Criminal Law for precedents. When this inquisitorial process was in existence in Scotland, women were practically excluded from its operation; and it was with the object of bringing that circumstance before the notice of the Committee that I intended to bring forward my Amendment.
  MR. ANDERSON: We have now been several hours discussing the question of the treatment of witnesses, and I venture to think that, as we have to meet again at 12 o'clock, the Motion I propose to make is not unreasonable. We are now falling again into the meshes of the Scottish law, and it is inevitable that a discussion of this kind must take a great deal of time, and lead to wide controversy. I, therefore, beg to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I understand that the hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment is most desirous that a Division should be taken on it. Under those circumstances, I take it that the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn will not press his Motion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No sensible man should ever be out of bed after 1 o'clock. It seems to me that, bearing in mind the fact that we were here until 6 o'clock yesterday morning, and shall have to be in our places again at 12 o'clock to-day, the Motion is not an unreasonable one.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I say nothing about the hour. I wish to advance the Business of the Committee as much as possible; and as I understand that the hon. and learned Member for South Kilkenny is himself desirous that a Division should be taken on his Amendment, the withdrawal of the Motion to report Progress appears to be the natural course to be adopted.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend above the Gangway (Mr. Anderson) that he should withdraw his Motion. We are prepared to go to a Division on the Amendment immediately; but I hope it will be the last taken during the present Sitting.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We originally proposed that these warrants should not be issued at all. The Act of 1882 has been thrown at us again and again and again by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), whom I am glad to see in his place this evening. The noble Marquess has been supporting the Bill on the ground that we were only re-enacting the measure of 1882; but the principle of that Bill was that the citation should only take place on a summons, or, in other words, that policemen should not be allowed to go into the houses of the people for the purpose of dragging their women before the Resident Magistrate at any hour of the day or night. I respectfully submit that when, under the Act of 1882, both for men and women summonses were required, the Liberal Unionists, at least, should abate some of their Toryism, and
  1576
  not compel women to be brought up under this section, without summons, at any hour. If summonses are issued, you have this guarantee, at any rate—that the witnesses will have an intimation as to the time at which they are required to appear; whereas, if there is no safeguard of this kind, the Constabulary will he able to arrest women at any hour of the night, and a most deplorable state of things will ensue. This is really a system of inquisition by night; and I contend that, as far as women are concerned, it is not a reasonable thing that they should be arrested summarily upon a warrant.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I do not want to stand between the Committee and the Division; but I wish to say a few words in reference to the argument that there are no precedents of exceptions being made in the case of women. I contend that exceptions have been made. What you are doing now will be a shock and an indignity to the whole of the women in Ireland. Moreover, you are passing this Bill in opposition to the wishes of five-sixths of the Irish Members. It may happen that a warrant will be issued against a woman—a farmer's wife or daughter, for instance—in regard to whom there is not even a suspicion that she has infringed the law. Nevertheless, she will be liable to be marched off, at a moment's notice, to the nearest market town. A more shocking indignity to a respectable woman cannot be conceived. At the present time especial care should be taken in dealing with a question of this magnitude. Every word you say here goes to the United States, to Australia, and to New Zealand; and if it goes forth that you contemplate submitting the women of Ireland to these indignities, your position will not be a pleasant one. The game is not worth the candle. You are making a scandal which will be brought up against you on many platforms in countries where the English language is spoken; and I do not think you will be backed up by the public opinion of Great Britain. Certainly, if you had women's suffrage you would have a large vote against it
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 208: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 129.)
  MR. ANDERSON: I beg again to move, Sir, that you report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I do not wish to take the Amendments which move that the whole sub-section be left out; but there is one in manuscript which, I believe, should come on later in the clause. There is Amendment No. 68, and the Amendment numbered 70. On these Amendments the Government will be prepared to make large concessions. Then there is an Amendment, 75a, on page 20, the principle of which was discussed last night, and I understood it to be withdrawn. I hope the Committee will see that there is no controversial matter before the Amendments to omit the subsection, and that we may be allowed to go on with those as to which no difficulty is likely to arise.
  MR. ANDERSON: I do not wish to stand in the way if the Committee desire to take Amendments as to which no difference of opinion is likely to arise; but I think that if there is any Amendment that will lead to controversy it is not desirable to proceed with that at this late hour.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope, after the declaration of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the Government propose to make concessions in regard to the Amendments 68 and 70, that the Government will be allowed to proceed with those Amendments.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am not inclined to be let in by the Government, as is usually the case when we do not nail them down to definite concessions before we consent to withdraw a Motion to report Progress. I should like to know what these proposed concessions are. We have heard before a good deal as to the enormous concessions which the Government propose to grant; but they always turn out to be moonshine or smoke, and we shall, no doubt, find the concessions of which they now talk are just as bogus as we have hitherto found the former concessions of the Government. I am prepared to meet the concessions of the
  1578
  Government in a spirit of conciliation; but it is impossible that we should meet the Government in that spirit without being prepared at the same time to discuss these concessions, and put the case as we view it from our side of the House. Seeing that we were working here again till 6 o'clock this morning, and that many of us have been working in Committees since 12 o'clock to-day—although the Leader of the House has, I observe, taken a holiday to-night—I think it is not too much to ask that we should now report Progress. If, indeed, the Chief Secretary wishes to explain what his proposed concessions are, we shall be glad to hear him; but it would be better to postpone the detailed consideration of the Amendments to which they relate until 12 o'clock today. Therefore, I think we ought to persist in the Motion to report Progress.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It would not be in Order, on a Motion to report Progress, for the Chief Secretary to make a statement as to Amendments. The hon. Member who has just spoken will lose nothing by allowing the Motion to be withdrawn, and then permitting the Government to state what concessions they will make. If those concessions are not satisfactory, he can renew the Motion to report Progress. Therefore, I hope he will allow the Motion to report Progress to be withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am quite prepared to go on; but I see no prospect of concluding the discussion on the Amendments referred to at this late hour of the morning. As I have already said, I am quite prepared to go on; but I hope I may be allowed to say this—the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has very courteously intimated to me the purport of the concessions which the Government are prepared to make; and I may say that, so far as Amendment 68 is concerned, there will be no discussion on it, for I agree that the concession which the hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to make will avoid the necessity for a discussion on that Amendment. I cannot, however, say so much for Amendment 70. The discussion on that and the other Amendments might take three hours. Under these circumstances, and although I am prepared to go on with the discussion on Amendment, I see no advantage in doing so to-night.
  MR. CONYBEARE: After what has fallen from my right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt), I am prepared to assent to the withdrawal of the Motion for reporting Progress, if the Government will stop after Amendment 68 has been disposed of.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are anxious to make Progress with the Business of the House. I entirely agree with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt). We wish to make progress with Business; for we think this is essential for the character and the reputation of the House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has remarked that it is only reasonable that we should be permitted to explain the Amendments on which we are prepared to make concessions. If, however, hon. Gentlemen opposite think that these Amendments will take three hours in discussing them, although we are prepared to make concessions, we will not ask the House to continue a discussion which would be unprofitable and a waste of public time. I regret, however, that hon. Gentlemen should insist on reporting Progress when it appeared possible to make some progress.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted the remarks from our side. We said that we thought the Amendments would take time. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Three hours.] Well, suppose they did take three hours. At all events, it cannot be denied that we were perfectly frank with the Committee; and yet, because we say this, the right hon. Gentleman flashes out into a considerable passion, which was certainly entirely needless. I have always myself been in favour of late Sittings. They agree with me; and I have no objection to go on if the Government wish it. However, the Government seem tired, and I am not surprised at it; for, certainly, we are tired of the Government. And as the Government think it desirable to report Progress, perhaps it would be better to do so.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman has talked, as usual, about the honour and dignity of the House, and implied that it was owing to my action in this matter that the dignity and honour of the House were imperiled. I have only to say that if the dignity
  1580
  and honour of this House have been endangered at all, it has been by the introduction of this Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow,

  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT REGISTRATION BILL.— [BILL 231.]
  (Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Mr. Howard Vincent, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Coddington, Mr. Lawson, Sir Albert Rollit.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had the support of all political Parties, and of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, and had met with the approval of the various Trade Protection Societies, and of the commercial public generally. Under those circumstances, he thought it would be sufficient to move that it be now read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Sir Albert Rollit,)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.
  FIRST OFFENDERS (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Howard Vincent, Lord Randolph Spencer Churchill, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Hoare, Mr. Addison, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Molloy.)
  [BILL 189.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 5 th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Power to court to release upon probation of good conduct instead of sentencing to imprisonment).
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: The questions involved in this Bill are very important, altering, as they do, the Criminal Law of the country to a considerable extent. The Bill raises serious questions of law, and, that being so, I do not think we should proceed with it now, and I will therefore move, Sir, that you do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Radcliffe Cooke.)
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I do Lope that some progress will be made with this Bill. It passed through this House in the last Parliament, and was then fully discussed. It was before the Committee last week, and I trust the Committee will now allow progress to be made with it. Its provisions are well known to the Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it would be most unreasonable that we should now be asked to proceed with this Bill, if it were only for the sake of the officers of the House, and of the Chairman of Committees, who was in the Chair until 5 o'clock yesterday morning, and will have to take the Chair again at 12 o'clock to-day.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: If the Committee is anxious to report Progress, I shall not, under the circumstances and at this hour, stand in the way.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.

FIRST OFFENDERS.

  ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
  Order [5th April], for an Address for a Return relating to First Offenders road, and discharged; and, instead thereof—
  Address for—
  "Return of the number of persons convicted, either upon indictment or summarily, and not known to have been previously convicted, who shall, on the 31st day of May 1887, be undergoing sentence of imprisonment (whether imposed absolutely or in default of payment of a fine), or shall be undergoing sentence of penal servitude, such sentences being in either case for offences other than arson, burgulary, coining, uttering counterfeit coin, throwing corrosive fluid, extortion, forgery, larceny from the person with violence, murder or attempted murder, placing explosives so as to endanger life or property, or receiving stolen goods; stating the number of those convicted under the age of twenty, and of those who shall have received sentences of less than twelve months' imprisonment."—(Mr. Hoare.)
  DR. TANNERsaid, he had observed that many of these Motions for Returns came on late at night, and appeared then to be assented to as a matter of course. He desired to know whether, if a Member rose in his place and objected to a Return, that would prevent the Motion being made, or being agreed to?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPART- MENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): I hope the hon. Member will not oppose the Motion. This is a Return which has duly appeared on the Notice Paper. It has been fully considered by the House on a former occasion, and has been ordered by the House in the regular way. But it was found necessary to make a small alteration in it; and this required that the original Order should be discharged, and that the Return should be ordered in the present amended form.
  Address agreed to.

MOTIONS

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board, under the provisions of "The Gas and Water works Facilities Act, 1870," "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act (1870) Amendment Act,1873,"and" The Public Health Act, 1875,"relating to the Local Government Districts of East Dereham and Meltham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 259.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm an Order of the Local Government Board, under the provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1870," as amended and extended by "The Poor Law Act, 1879," relating to the Parishes of Aldington, Saint Leonard, Hythe, and West Hythe, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 260.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government District of Abergele and Pensarn, the District of Bilston, the Boroughs of Bradford (Yorks.) and Evesham, the Improvement Act District of Leek, the Local Government Districts of Leyton and Wanstead, and the Borough of Ramsgate, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 261.]
  House adjourned at hall after One o'clock.

MINUTES."
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Crofters Holdings (Scotland) * (90); Dog Owners * (91).
Second Reading—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites) (76).
Report—Customs Consolidation Act (1876) Amendment* (71).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Elementary Education (Christchurch) * (92); Elementary Education(Middleton St. George) * (93); Elementary Education (London) * (94); Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin, &c.)* (95).
Third Reading—Local Government * (70), and passed.

BANKRUPTCY OFFICES (SITES) BILL.
(The Lord Henniker.)
(NO. 76.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Henniker.)
LORD HERSCHELLsuggested that a Petition having been presented against the Bill it should be referred to a Select Committee.
LORD HENNIKERsaid, the First Commissioner of Works had no objection whatever, although the time had expired for presenting Petitions, to allow the Petition to go to the Select Committee. The Bill was a hybrid one, and as there was already a Petition against it, it would go, as a matter of course, before a Select Committee. He might mention that there was an agreement between the Office of Works and Clement's Inn with respect to a footway to take the place of the one to be moved. This agreement would be considered as honourably binding on the Government; but if it was desired, the First Commissioner had no objection to insert a clause in the
1434
Bill to carry out the agreement. Perhaps this statement might meet the objection of the noble and learned Lord.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)pointed out that the Committee could not be appointed before Whitsuntide. As to the Petition, he thought the proper course would be to give Notice for Thursday that Standing Order No. 93 should be considered with the view of its being suspended in order to admit the Petition being received.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (1869) AND AMENDING ACTS (ARCHBISHOP HOLGATE'S GRAMMAR SCHOOL AT HEMSWORTH).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in rising to move—
  "That an himble address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from the Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales for the management of the Free Grammar School founded by Archbishop Holgate in the parish of Hemsworth in the county of York, the Hospital founded by Archbishop Holgate in the above-named parish of Hemsworth commonly known as Hemsworth Hospital, the Grammar School founded by Thomas Keresford in the borough of Barnsley in the county of York, and of the endowment attached to the last-named grammar school, and the gift of Phœbe Locke, so far as such Scheme affects the said grammar school and hospital at Hemsworth, and which Scheme is now lying on the Table of the House pursuant to the Endowed Schools Acts of 1869 and Amending Acts,"
  said, he presented Petitions from the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, who had signed to the number of 3,482 persons, from the rural clergy, from the Board of Guardians, and from the Rural Sanitary Authority at Hemsworth and the Poor Law Union against the scheme of the Charity Commissioners. Those Petitions, he thought, fairly represented the public opinion of the whole locality against the scheme. In moving his Resolution, he submitted that the facts of the case were somewhat complicated by a Memorial from the Department dated 3rd May, 1867, in which the position of the Department was strongly described, but he thought more strongly than accurately. In the first place, they were told that the Commissioners were

  1435
  encouraged to take the course which they had taken with respect to this foundation by the patron and visitors, the Lord Archbishop of York and the trustees. The school of Hemsworth was in the year 1879 in considerable straits. They had the misfortune which might happen to any school—that of having a master who was somewhat supine, and the governors decided to get rid of him. They took such steps as they were advised, but it proved impossible to remove him, unless some charge of immorality or misbehaviour was preferred against him. In other words, it was not enough that the duties were imperfectly performed; there must be some specific charge which would justify the removal. At that time, no doubt, there was an opinion, the population being somewhat small and the difficulties of the school in the past having been considerable, that some other site might be found, or that it might be united with some other foundation. But an expressed opinion at that time in the early stages ought not in their view to be now binding. He ventured to hold that it was the publication of the scheme which drew forth that public opinion which enabled a right decision to be arrived at; and when the Commissioners complained that they were led by the preliminary opinion of the trustees and the visitors into what they seemed to regard as a false position, they ought also to remember that the publication of the scheme was not a final act, but rather a preliminary and first step towards ascertaining the opinion of the locality. Of the opinion of the locality there could not be the slightest doubt, as the Petitions laid upon the Table covered the whole ground. "With regard to the reference which has been made to himself, he did not believe ho was a visitor, and he was only patron in a very limited sense. In 1857, according to his reading of the Act, the office of visitor was done away with by ordering that the trustees should appoint a committee to visit the foundation and report to thorn. That took away the visitorial power from the Archbishop of York, which power had never been restored. Under the scheme of the Court of Chancery of 1861 it was provided that the Archbishop should be the patron to appoint the Head Master, provided he
  1436
  did it within 20 days, but it was impossible to exercise that patronage under those conditions; therefore, virtually, the patronage was taken away from the Archbishop, hence his connection with the hospital was of the slightest description. But not only was he made responsible by the trustees in their statement, but he found it was alleged that what he had written on the subject tended to raise a religious difficulty. He denied that that construction was to be put upon anything he had written. The only point he had wished to raise was whether an endowed school of this kind could be properly dealt with by being removed to another site. The only question he wished to place before their Lordships was that here was an endowment of the net value of £450. It was an endowment of a high school among a population of about 20,000, which was largely increasing. The history of Barnsley for the last 50 or 60 years showed how the population had increased, and it was possible that Hemsworth would largely develop in the near future, its mines being by no means exhausted. He might instance the case of Middlesborough, situate at the north edge of Yorkshire, which was a few years ago a mere village, but now a large borough, returning a Member to Parliament and having a Municipal Corporation, and all the elements of civic life. He contended that before this endowment was irrevocably diverted they should consider that the time might come, and in the next 20 years, when Hemsworth, like Middlesbrough, would become a large and thriving place, and require this money for its own educational purposes. This £450 a-year it was now proposed to take to Barnsley, to which place, owing to the defective railway accommodation, there was considerable difficulty for the school children of Hemsworth to get to. He really was at a loss to find any reason for this removal. It was not only a question of geography, but it was to some extent a matter of sentiment, for Barnsley was in another diocese, and he protested against a school founded by one of his Predecessors being transferred to another diocese without some valid reason. He pleaded for a suspension of operations in regard to this foundation, submitting that in course of time the trustees would be able to establish an efficient school,

  1437
  and that in making their demand they wore asking nothing that was not reasonable and wise. They asked for two years to set their house in order, and they wished for permission to establish scholarships and endowments as an encouragement to the school. The Commissioners refused that and threatened the institution, which fact, he reminded their Lordships, was bound to have a bad effect on the school. The most rev. Prelate concluded by submitting the Motion of which ho had given Notice.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON, in seconding the Motion, said, that he had examined into this matter in all its bearings on the spot. Ho considered that the scheme propounded by the Charity Commissioners in this case was needless, unwise, and unjust. The neighbourhood was a growing one; it had doubled within the last 10 years, and would be doubled again in the next 10 years. The scheme would take away from this rising neighbourhood the very thing which it needed—a good secondary school. They were now being called upon to sweep away every intention of the original founder, although the reasons for which it had been created were five times as strong as they had then been, and to transfer it to a manufacturing town eight miles off, which had no facilities of access, and which had not even asked for it. There were sufficient educational facilities at present existing in Barnsley, and he could not conceive a place more unfitted for the transfer of such a foundation as that under consideration. The income also of the school was almost entirely derived from the surrounding people. The sum of £300 a-year had been given for a certain length of time, after which the question was to be reconsidered. As the whole income of the school was only about £500 a-year, he thought that they might at all events wait until that time came if anything had to be done. The scheme had only been settled 20 years ago; it had been practically revised 10 years ago, and it was now proposed to revise it again. He admitted that it was within the legal power of the Charity Commissioners to frame a scheme which took away the benefits of the charity from the district to which it had originally been granted; but the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Endowed Schools, which
  1438
  had just been published, had recommended that these provisions should only be applied in cases whore population was decreasing, and where, therefore, the need for any such accommodation was likely to lessen rather than to increase. In the present instance exactly the converse was the case, as the neighbourhood was a rising one, and there was a large amount of property which was being farther developed. The school also met the wants of a class of parents who wished for something better than the national schools for their children, and could not afford the expense of a public school. If this scheme were adopted the Hemsworth school building, which had cost £5,000, would be a White Elephant, for it was incapable of being turned into cottages, and it was unsaleable for residential purposes. The scheme unsettled everything, and settled nothing. A great deal more good might be achieved by leaving matters as they were. He hoped that in deciding this question their Lordships would not be guided by any Party question, but follow their own judgment.
  Moved, "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from the Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales for the management of the Free Grammar School founded by Archbishop Holgate in the parish of Hemsworth, in the county of York, the Hospital founded by Archbishop Holgate in the above-named parish of Hemsworth commonly known as Hemsworth Hospital, the Grammar School founded by Thomas Keresford in the Borough of Bamsley in the county of York, and of the endowment attached to the last-named grammar school, and the gift of Phœbo Locke, so far as such Scheme affects the said grammar school and hospital at Hemsworth, and which Scheme is now lying on the Table of the House pursuant to the Endowed School Act of 1869 and Amending Acts."—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he entirely sympathized with the last sentence of the noble Lord, and sincerely trusted that their Lordships would carefully weigh and consider all the arguments that might be adduced for and against the proposal of the most rev. Prelate. This scheme, after passing through its various stages, had been submitted, in due course to the Education Committee of the Privy Council last summer. It had come before him as Lord President of the Council, and after carefully going through it he had signed his approval. Subsequently various Memorials were

  1439
  presented to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, drawing attention to the legal aspects of the case. The case was disposed of by the Judicial Committee, who had given their opinion in favour of the promoters of the scheme. It had then come before Her Majesty in Council, and had been laid on the Table of the House. Ho believed that their Lordships had all read the clear statement submitted to them from the Charity Commissioners, and also the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He did not wish to go through these arguments at any length, but he would like shortly to explain why he had thought it right to give his approval to the scheme. It had been shown on most conclusive evidence that this school, which had been founded in the Reign of Henry VIII., had been, certainly in recent years, a failure. It was to be noted that the words of the original Charter, granted in 1548, stated the object to be the encouragement of education in England, but there was no mention of any special locality in which this was to be done. Schools, however, wore established, a grammar school in Hemsworth, and elementary schools in surrounding villages, each of which received about £40 a-year towards its elementary school. With regard to the grammar school there was a long chain of evidence showing how entirely it had failed. In 1828 Lord Brougham's Commission pointed out that it did not appear that the school had been carried on with success, and that there was not a sufficient number of boys in the neighbourhood who required a classical education to make the school a success. Lord Taunton's Commission, in 1865, reported very much to the same effect. In these villages, the Report said, no day scholars could be expected who required a classical instruction, or more than an elementary education. In 1878 one of the Assistant Commissioners of the Charity Commission, Mr. Fearon, now the Secretary, wont down to make an inquiry, and ho came to the conclusion that it was of little or no use to maintain the school at Hemsworth. "No day scholars can be expected to avail themselves of the classical instruction." The Commissioners before this had been opposed to the moving of the school, but after learning the result of this inquiry they came to the conclusion that they
  1440
  ought to exercise their undoubted power and remove the school to some other locality. They accordingly invited the attention of the trustees and patrons to this point. The most rev. Prelate then wrote a letter, dated April 10, 1879, in which he said—
  "In my judgment the grammar school is not much needed in its present position, and I fear that so long as it remains at Hemsworth it will languish."
  The trustees, however, asked for some delay, to give the school a fair trial under the new head master, and to this the Commissioners agreed, and a delay of two years was allowed. After this further trial, the head master himself wrote saying that he did not think that the school could succeed. Further correspondence took place between the trustees and the Commissioners, in which the trustees, while practically agreeing to the removal, made certain stipulations—that the town to which the school was removed should find £5,000, that the head master should be provided for, and other small matters of this kind. All these points had been met by the Commissioners, but the trustees were not satisfied. Since then, a Committee of the House of Commons had inquired into the whole matter, and, after hearing all the evidence against the scheme, they approved the scheme, without even calling upon the Charity Commission to support it. It was said that Barnsley was a dirty, smoky town, but that surely was no reason why it should be denied the advantages of a grammar school. If the school were established in a rural district like Hemsworth, enormous expenditure would have to be incurred in the erection of boarding-houses for the scholars. The scheme had been approved by a Committee of the House of Commons, on which two Vice Presidents of the Council, Sir Lyon Play fair and Sir Henry Holland, served. It would be a serious disaster if the idea should go forth that the scheme was opposed on grounds of religious difference. In the interests of the Church of England itself it was greatly to be hoped that nothing approaching to sectarian acrimony would be caused in connection with the matter before their Lordships. He earnestly trusted that the House would not agree to the Memorial presented by the most rev. Prelate.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he objected to the scheme on the ground that neither the founder's wishes nor the wishes of the locality had been regarded. In Hemsworth itself and the neighbourhood there was absolute unanimity in opposition to the scheme. Even the head master, Mr. Butler, might be considered an opponent of the scheme, as his objection in 1881 to the school remaining at Hemsworth was solely based on the absence of scholarships which the Charity Commissioners refused to found in the old school, but founded further now ones. Hemsworth was admirably suited, according to the testimony of a late master of Malvern College, and other competent authorities, to be the site of a school of this character. It was the centre of a growing district of over 20,000 inhabitants, and was certainly a much better place than "Black Barnsley," as that town had always been called. The climate was good, and Hemsworth and its neighbourhood were an oasis amid the surrounding blackness. The scheme had been very imperfectly advertised, and was but little known in the district. It was not the case that the opponents of the scheme wished the school to be reduced to the level of an elementary school. But it would do good service as a middle or second grade school, though it could not be expected to compete with the great public schools. The paper which had been circulated a few days ago was full of misstatements and suppressions most discreditable to whoever had drawn and issued it. It first suppresses the fact that the Archbishop of York had, so far back as 1881, objected to the removal of the school, and said that he should be particularly unwilling to have it removed out of the diocese. It represents the trustees as having been willing at first to have it removed. They had never voted anything of the kind, but only that if it was to be removed (which they supposed the Commissioners to have power to do) it should not be removed to Barnsley but to Pontefract, therefore the Commissioners were not justified in saying that they were encouraged either by the patron or by the trustees to go on with the scheme for the i removal of the school; and the statements which had been put forth on that subject were misleading. Mr. Fearon was evidently very anxious to prove that the
  1442
  school was a failure; and how did he try to make that out? He gave the results of his inquiries during two visits, on both of which ho found that there were very few boys at the school. But when was that? The latest of those occasions was in 1878, and in 1886 that gentleman made an affidavit for the information of the Privy Council; but he did not tell them what had happened since 1878, when the new master came to the school. How could the school be said to have failed? Reference had been made to the House of Commons Committee of last year, which was said to have been satisfied of the goodness of the scheme. Mr. Fearon had given evidence, and two of the Commissioners had also done so, and had said all that they wanted to say about the school. Sir George Young said that there were two, and perhaps only two, classes of cases where the removal of a school ought to be persisted in in spite of opposition, one of them being where the school sought to be removed had been a failure where it stood, and was proved to be so by a long-continued experience, and not only by what it was eight years ago under a different master; and the other was where it was not fulfilling the desire of the founder, and where they did not see their way in the same place to turn it into anything that would do good upon the principle upon which they acted in such matters. Another of the Commissioners gave evidence that a complete change of locality was very rare, and that, in fact, the circumstances would have to be very strong to justify it. The paper of reasons suppresses another letter from the Archbishop in 1883, a considerable time before the scheme was published, which only means circulated. It was not true that the Commissioners had entered into engagements of any kind with Barnsley before then, as the paper asserted. Pointing out further inaccuracies in the statements put forward in support of the scheme, the noble Lord asked how it could be said that that school had failed? It had been built for 40 boys, and a year ago there were 37 boys in it. The numbers were stated to have fallen, and the noble Lord below (Lord Middleton) had given a very sufficient reason for it in the unsettled state of things caused by the Commissioners;

  1443
  the school was as good as it was intended or expected to be. The noble Earl had referred to the school as it was 60 years ago, and had also read another report about its state 23 years ago; and that was the way in which it was sought to show that it was a failure now. Ho contended that the school was not a failure, and that the Commissioners had not made out a case. Hemsworth had a moral right to the school remaining where it was, and it should not be taken away. The compensation professed to be given by scholarships at other places is no real compensation to inhabitants of that neighbourhood. He would only add, that he concurred with the views of the most rev. Prelate, and hoped that their Lordships would agree to the Address.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, he came first to the consideration of this case with a mind quite open, and, perhaps, he should say with a feeling against the unnecessary removal of a school from the place in which it was originally founded. But the more he looked into the matter the more satisfied did he become that the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) "was right in the statement he made in 1879 that the school was not likely to answer in the place in which it existed. When removal was spoken of it had to be borne in mind that this was not a removal in the ordinary sense of the term. It was the removal of a school to a place in the immediate neighbourhood, and so far as the district generally was considered, the proposed place to which the school was to be removed was a better locality than Hemsworth. Royston contained about half the population of the district, and was nearer to Barnsley than was Hemsworth. To make the school successful, it was necessary that a certain amount of money should be spent on it, and no one supposed that Hemsworth could supply that money. It was said that there were 37 boys attending the school at one time. He found, on the contrary, that on May 4 the entire number was 22 scholars, three of whom were boarders and 13 paying scholars, only five of the boys belonging to Hemsworth. No doubt, when Archbishop Holgate founded the three schools in different parts of Yorkshire he had ambitious ideas, and believed that they
  1444
  would grow up to much larger institutions, but that had not been the case at Hemsworth. In a district of such a kind it was not to be expected that the class of school provided would succeed. In 1881 the trustees themselves were prepared, subject to a satisfactory provision being made to preserve the interests of the parishes concerned, to consent to the removal of the school. All the conditions which they laid down had been fulfilled by the Charity Commission, and the only question was as to the difference between Barnsley and Pontefract. He was not going to argue that Pontefract was not a much pleasanter place than Barnsley; but Pontefract was, if anything, a declining place; while Barnsley was swarming with a thronging and increasing population of some 80,000 people. No doubt the people there were subject to all the influences of a crowded population in a smoky atmosphere; but, while admitting that, he did not see that there was the less necessity to encourage the languishing grammar school there. If the school remained at Hemsworth, a large sum would have to be raised, as was admitted by the main advocate of the present site, and must come out of and bring very low the endownments, whereas at Barnsley the needful money was to be provided and buildings secured. Anything objectionable in the shape of cottages too near was to be removed, and two endowments which at present existed at Barnsley were to be given to the school. He was surprised to hear a noble Lord say that Barnsley was well supplied with schools, because that was not the case. It was said, however, that Barnsley had not asked for the removal of the school. The Committee on Endowed Schools which inquired into the question pointed out that Barnsley had a population of 80,000 persons, and that there was a great want of provision for higher education. The Charity Commissioners had made no secret of their intentions since 1879, nor had there been a word to lead anyone to suppose that Mr. Fearon had misled those interested. In 1879 the case was practically given up for Hemsworth as a place suited for the kind of school wanted. A grammar school in the midst of that population was unsuited to the condition of the people. On the other hand, they had in their power the means of benefiting

  1445
  the large population of Parsley. The most rev. Prelate very lately contemplated removal, as he spoke of other languishing schools needing aid. By adopting the scheme of the Commissioners, they were acting in accordance with the wishes of the founder, and were also increasing the capabilities for usefulness of the institution. He, therefore, trusted their Lordships would concur with him in the opinion which the Charity Commissioners had come to, and in regard to which he himself had come to the same conclusion as the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), and two different Vice Presidents of the Council—namely, that the scheme ought to be confirmed.
  LORD ST. OSWALD, as one of the trustees of the school, said, the trustees were all against the removal of the school to Barnsley. They considered Hemsworth was the place where the school ought to be, and that, even if there had not been occasions for it in 1879, there was ample occasion for it now. The population of Hemsworth had increased enormously, and was still increasing, and it would be a great injustice to take the school away. No doubt, in past years, the school had not come up to the expectations formed of it; but in future years there would be a better system of management. The inhabitants of the parish were absolutely and unanimously against its removal. He admitted it was true that the school had gone down in attendance last year; but the sole reason for that, as told him the other day by the headmaster, Mr. Butler, was the circulation of a report that the school was going to be removed to Barnsley. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he hoped the House would not sanction the scheme.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that, before touching upon the principles involved in this question, he must take occasion to protest most emphatically against the attack made by the noble Lord (Lord Grimthorpe) on Mr. Fearon, who was one of the most useful men in the Public Service. He thought that very often the spirit of the original intention of a founder was best carried out by not adhering too rigidly to the letter of his instructions when circumstances had changed. In order to carry
  1446
  out their great object, founders of institutions had sometimes insisted on some minor point which, in altered circumstances, interfered with the carrying out of their intentions. It would not be fair to reject this scheme, except for exceptional reasons, which in the present case had not been shown. No scheme had been rejected since 1874, except one withdrawn by the Education Department. Ho thought the power of rejection should only be used whore a broad principle was marked out, on the ground of a number of local details which the majority of the House could hardly pronounce upon. He trusted, therefore, that the House would take the advice of the noble Viscount the President of the Council and reject the Motion of the most rev. Prelate.
  LOUD DENMAN (who had some difficulty in obtaining a hearing)said: The Archbishop, being a native of Hems-worth, would never have wished students to go to Barnsley (seven miles off) even if a railway went the whole distance. He would have desired that they should have the best education that an educated man could give them, near their own home, As the House wished to "Divide," the sooner their Lordships did so the better.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 61: Majority 23.

  CONTENTS.

  York, L. Archp.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Bristol, M.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Denman, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Devon, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Macclesfield, E.

  Morton, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Powis, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Grimthorpe, L. [Teller.]

  Halifax, V.

  Hillingdon, L

  Powerscourt, V.

  Londesborough, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Lyveden, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Saint Oswald, L. [Teller.]

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Wynford, L.

  1447

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Colchester, L.

  Cranbrook, V. (L. President)

  De Mauley, D.

  de Ros, L.

  Cadogan, E.(L. Privy Seal.)

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

  Bedford, D.

  Grafton, D.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Manchester, D.

  Marlborough, D.

  Harris, L.

  Hartismere, L, (L. Henniker.)

  Ripon, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Herschell, L.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Derby, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Kensington, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Lyttleton, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Morley, E.

  Monk-Bretton, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Strafford, E.

  Northington, L, (L. Henley.)

  Oxenbridge, V.

  O'Neill, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Poltimore, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Southwell, L. Bp.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Balfour of Burley, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Preston, L.

  Belper, L.

  Thring, L.

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

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Resolved in the negative.

CREMATION.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  LORD FORBES, in moving for a Return of the number of cremations that had taken place in England within the last five years, and asking by what authority and under what regulations they were permitted, said, that this question was of importance from a social point of view, because it was necessary that precautions should be insisted upon by which any poison could be detected before a body was cremated.
  Moved, " That there be laid before this House Return of the number of cremations that have taken place in England within the last five years."—(The Lord Forbes.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that the Government would have been willing to give such a Return if it
  1448
  had been in their power; it was impossible, however, for them to do so, because, as cremation was a matter of individual discretion and not an official proceeding, no records were kept, or at least none that were accessible to the Government. He did not know whether the danger referred to by the noble Lord was real or not, as he was not well informed on that matter; but he doubted whether the traces of mineral poisons would be absolutely obliterated. The practice was scarcely sufficiently common at present to call for any Parliamentary interference, and as to the information which the noble Lord desired, the Home Office were unable to supply it.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he might point out that cremation did not require any official sanction. It was perfectly legal, unless so conducted as to be a nuisance or offensive to public decency.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, the noble Lord would find that this matter had been fully discussed in a debate in the House of Commons, in the Session of 1884 or 1885, when it was proposed to legislate.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHasked the Prime Minister, Whether it would be convenient to somewhat postpone the Committee stage of the Tithe Rent-charge Bill, so as to allow a fuller consideration of the Amendments that had been put down on the Paper?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, the only other day available was Monday week, the day on which the House rose before the Queen's birthday. He might take this opportunity of stating that he had received a great number of communications with regard to the clause in the Bill which provided for the reduction of 5 per cent by the landowner, and he felt that this would in many cases inflict an injustice on the titheowner, where, for instance, the landowner now paid his own tithe, where the landowner was in occupation, and where the titheowner was in the habit of collecting the tithe himself. He, therefore, proposed to drop the clause.

  CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Was presented by The Marquess of Lothian; read 1a (No. 90.)
  DOG OWNERS BILL [H.L.]
  Was presented by The Lord Mount-Temple; read 1a. (No. 91.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CHRISTCHURCH) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 92.)
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MIDDLETON ST. GEORGE) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 93.)
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 94.)
    Were presented by The Lord President; read la.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (DUBLIN, &C.) BILL [H.L.]
    Was presented by The Lord Privy Seal: read 1a. (No. 95.)
    House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.