Sitting of 18 May 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) [217] [Ninth Night]—R.P.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (No. 3) ✶ [268].
Second Reading—Tramways (No. 1) ✶ [257].

MOTIONS.
  COMMITTEES (ASCENSION DAY).
  Ordered,That Committees shall not sit Tomorrow, being Ascension Day, until Two of the clock, and have leave to sit until Six of the clock, notwithstanding the sitting of the House.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government District of Alverstoke, the Boroughs of Dewsbury, Great Torrington, Halifax, and Nottingham, and the Rural Sanitary District of the St. Thomas Union, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 268.]

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

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th May.]
  [NINTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
  Clause 2 (Extension of summary jurisdiction).
  MR. CHANCE: I beg to move the omission in page 2, line 14, of the words—
  "Any person who shall commit any of the following offences in a proclaimed district."
  I believe that there exists some mysterious person termed a "draftsman" in the Irish Office. Who he is I do not know, but he receives annually about £2,000; and I think that for £2,000 a-year we might expect something like English grammar, although we may not expect decent drafting. In moving the Amendment, which stands first on the Paper, I will read the few lines of the second clause. They commence by stating—
  "Any person who shall commit any of the following offences in a proclaimed district,"
  and one would imagine that the clause would go on to describe the offences in question. It does no such thing. It
  416
  goes on to describe the offenders in a series of sub-sections, but not the offences. I also wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that a most extraordinary method has been used in framing the first line in this clause, because it assumes that every person sent to this special tribunal shall, as a preliminary condition, have committed an offence within the knowledge of some person, and, therefore, must be found guilty as a matter of course. I can conceive no drafting more bad or more grossly careless than to say—"Any person who shall commit an offence shall be tried for it." The whole essence of law is to discover whether a person has committed an offence or not. It is ridiculous to provide that a person shall have committed an offence. It is for these reasons that I move the first Amendment that stands in my name; but I may explain that it is intended to transpose the words of the clause. The clause will read—
  "Any person may be prosecuted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under this Act who shall have taken part in any criminal conspiracy to compel or induce any person or persons either not to fulfil his or their legal obligations," & c.
  That will, at least, make the clause English, and it will not alter the principle of the clause in the slightest degree. What I object to is the bad grammar and the bad drafting of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, leave out from "who" to "district" in line 15 inclusive.—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHANCE: Before the Attorney General for Ireland rises may I ask, as a point of Order, whether, if this Amendment is passed, it will be competent to move the substitution of the word "shall" for "may"?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The hon. Member complains of the drafting of the Bill, and he has made a direct attack upon the draftsman. Now, I am not the draftsman myself, but I have found no difficulty in understanding what the clause means, and I do not believe that any tribunal or any Member of the House, on reading over

  417
  the clause, if he brings his reason to bear on it, will have any difficulty in understanding it. The Government are asked now to recast the entire clause, not for the purpose of altering the sense of the clause, but to meet the views of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite as to mere terms of expression. The Government are not disposed to comply with the request of the hon. Member. If it can be shown that the clause is not intelligible, we will be ready to listen to any suggestion to alter it which may be made. Nothing, however, of the kind has been done, and the clause, as it stands, is perfectly intelligible. I may tell the hon. Member that however wide his knowledge of the Statutes may be, and whatever may be the faults of the draftsman employed in drawing up this clause, the precedents of other Acts which are now on the Statute Book have been followed. The sentence specially pointed to by the hon. Member is one which will be thoroughly understood by the Court, and will undoubtedly have the proper construction put upon it. I contend that it is perfectly clear as it stands, and that it is altogether unnecessary to alter it.
  MR. CHANCE: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have exhibited such warmth in defending the absent draftsman. Considering the warmth which he has displayed, I think it may be rightly assumed that the employment of this individual has been a job to oblige one of the right hon. Gentleman's political confréres.
  MR. HOLMES: I certainly did feel it necessary to defend the draftsman, seeing that he has actually followed the precedents of other Statutes in drawing up the clause.
  MR. CHANCE: Who is he?
  MR. HOLMES: That has nothing to do with the matter.
  MR. CHANCE: What is his name?
  MR. HOLMES: He has been in the Irish Office for years—long before I came to the Office I now hold.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member for Kilkenny that he is introducing into the Question an element which is totally unnecessary.
  MR. CHANCE: Of course I bow to your ruling, Sir; but I retain my silent opinion upon the matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made an
  418
  attack upon me, and I think I had a right to know what was the motive which actuated him in doing so. I never claimed to be a judge of the technicalities of the Statutes at large; but I have pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he would apply his mind to this section he would see that it is ungrammatical and nonsensical. I do not think any parallel can be found for it except in a Game Act which was passed by the Tory Party. One page in that Act contains 13 mistakes in grammar and English. The first line of this clause says—"Any person who shall commit any of the following offences," and then 1st sub-section goes on to describe the offenders—namely, "any person who shall take part in any criminal conspiracy," & c. According to this a person is an offence and not an offender. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in raising the question I was only anxious to maintain the reputation of the Tory Bench, represented so brilliantly by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, in matters of grammar. I only ask them to make this clause at least intelligible and decent grammar, and, in reply, the Attorney General for Ireland launches out into personalities and accusations that I not only know the whole of the Statutes, but wish to pose as an authority upon grammar. Now, I know nothing of the kind; but I do know what grammar is, and I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland to say whether the words of this clause are either decent grammar or common sense?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not see why, when my hon. Friend points out that the language of the clause is indefensible, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should commence to jeer. I think it the statutable right, if the Irish people are to be sent to prison, that they should be committed to gaol with all the pomp of the English language grammatically expressed. Here we have a clause which will be intelligible only to the understanding of a Resident Magistrate. My contention is that it should be intelligible to the meanest intelligence. We are not informed who the person is who has drawn up the clause. Is it some superhuman individual who has no existence either in this House or anywhere else? The clause says—

  419
  "Any person who shall commit any of the following offences in a proclaimed district may be prosecuted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under this Act," & c.
  And the first of the offences specified is, 'Any person who shall take part in any criminal conspiracy." Therefore, one of the offences is a person. Now, a person is no offence, and if he is to get six months imprisonment, let him get it by virtue of a provision grammatically expressed in an Act of Parliament. I presume that the First Lord of the Treasury has a proper knowledge of grammar, and I would respectfully ask him how he would construe this clause? I defy even his intelligence to put the clause into anything like decent form. The Irish people do not pretend to speak the English language with a cockney accent; but they have some idea of English grammar, and I hope the Government will give this Bill to them in a reasonable shape. I see that the Government is now reinforced by the presence of the Irish Solicitor General, who is well known in the Law Courts as a master of diction. I trust that he will get up and explain the language of the clause.
  MR. R. T. REID: There can be no doubt that the words of the clause are imperfect so far as their grammatical construction is concerned, and perhaps it may not be easy to remedy them. Probably the best course would be to omit in line 17 the words "any person who shall take part in any criminal conspiracy," & c, and then define the offences instead of the offenders.
  MR. CHANCE: That would get rid of one objection, but another still remains—namely, the words "who shall commit any of the following offences." I think it is ridiculous in an Act of Parliament to lay down a condition precedent to the trial of a person that that person shall commit an offence.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J.BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me on a question of legal style.
  MR. CHANCE: No; upon a question of grammar.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no question upon which I am less competent to give an opinion than legal style. I must confess that I am not an admirer of the language of an Act of Parliament. It appears to me, however, that the
  420
  clause comes up to the standard of legal English. It has the advantage of being perfectly intelligible at the first glance. The Bill has been carefully drawn up, and will have to pass the rigid scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. I hope the time of the Committee is not to be wasted in discussing at length questions of improving the mere style of the clauses of the Bill.
  MR. CHANCE: English grammar.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill is quite good enough English and good enough grammar for an Act of Parliament. It is, at all events, what every Act of Parliament is not—namely, uncommonly good sense. I quite admit that every precaution should be taken in the Bill to make its meaning perfectly clear, so that on the face of the Bill itself, everybody may know what we intend to adopt, and what we shall adopt. But if hon. Gentlemen ask us to consider all these emendations in order to improve the legal style of the Bill, by what time do they think the deliberations of this Committee are likely to end?
  MR. CHANCE: Next year.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the Committee ought to confine the discussion to questions of substance, and that we should not be called upon to waste our time in discussing questions of grammar and parsing. Are we to spend hour after hour in discussing Amendments merely to satisfy the fastidious tastes of hon. Members opposite? I am sorry that in discussing the clause the hon. Member for Kilkenny should have considered it necessary to attack a gentleman who is not a Member of this House. Even if the Bill was open to adverse criticism as to its drafting, which I believe is not the case, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to recollect the great amount of labour that has been thrown upon the draftsman of the Irish Office during the last few months, not only in regard to this Bill, but the Bill now before the House of Lords, and also other Bills. I think there should be ample excuse for errors even far greater than any that can be found within the four corners of this Bill. I feel that I should not be in Order in pursuing that matter at length; but I feel bound to stand up for this gentleman who was not appointed by the present Government, but who has long held this Office and has long carried out the important

  421
  functions which he now discharges so well in the Irish Office, and to the satisfaction of successive Chief Secretaries.
  MR. CHANCE: You ought to give his name.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is no business of mine to give the name. The hon. Member will have no difficulty in finding it out if he desires, and if there is any hon. Gentleman who wishes to impugn the character of this gentleman, the proper time for doing so will be when the Vote for the payment of his salary comes before the House. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will understand the principles which the Government have laid down for themselves in this matter. They are ready to accept any Amendment which may be required to make the meaning of the Bill, if possible, more clear, but they are not ready, and they will not consent, as far as they can avoid it, to waste the time of the Committee in discussing Amendments which, at the best, are mere Amendments for the improvement of style.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The point we take up in regard to the Bill is this. We say it is quite bad enough that the measure is to take away the liberties of the Irish people, but, at any rate, we are entitled to interfere when we find that it is making ducks and drakes with the Queen's English. We are not able to agree to the provisions of the Bill, but, at any rate, let us be able to parse it, and I respectfully submit that we are not in a position to do that now. The House has been engaged during the past fortnight in discussing points of law, and we have now arrived at a moment when it has become necessary to discuss points of grammar. I think the time has come when some strong steps should be taken. Will the Chief Secretary for Ireland get up and tell us what the word "person" in all the later sub-sections is, and what is the nominative?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member in Order in debating anything but the Amendment before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The observations of the hon. Member are connected with the Amendment; but I think the discussion has degenerated into a matter
  422
  which is of infinitely little importance, and I hope the hon. Member will confine himself, as much as possible, to the point at issue.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think we are entitled to complain of the unreasonable view the Government take of the Amendments we submit to the Committee. I will not, however, pursue further the line of observations which you, Sir, have commented on; but I will say this, that when we point out a blot in any of these sections, whether it is a blot in respect of substance or of grammar, the Government, with pigheaded obstinacy, as if in some way their character was involved, refuse to listen to our complaints. I fail to see that we are in any way concerned with the character of the draftsman of this Bill. Let us take the section as it stands, and see whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, without regard to the character of the man who drew it up. On that ground I put it to the Government whether, in regard to their own character for knowledge of the English language, they do not think it will be compromised before the public if this section is passed into law in its present form?
  MR. O'HEA: Her Majesty's Government are so much in the habit of swallowing camels that it is only natural for them to strain at a gnat. Anything more clumsy or more ungrammatical than this clause could not be included in any section of an Act of Parliament. The Attorney General for Ireland has defended the Government draftsman, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland has chimed in with the same line of argument. Of course, the draftsman may be good enough for Her Majesty's Government, and the construction of this particular section of an Act of Parliament may be good enough for the intellect and capacity of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. But I think we have a perfect right to point out blunders and stupidity wherever we find them. Everyone must see, upon reading the section, that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny was perfectly right in the observations he made.
  MR. CHANCE: No doubt, this is a very small point, and I am sorry that the Government have taken up such an unreasonable attitude on the matter. I appealed to the Chief Secretary for Ire-

  423
  and as an authority on English grammar, but he declined to respond to the appeal. The Irish Members must act accordingly, and I shall press for a Division. The sooner, therefore, we take a Division the better.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 81: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 151.)
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move in line 14, after "shall," to insert "after the passing of this Act." I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept that Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, after "shall," insert "after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: According to the principle I have just laid down, I do not think the Government ought to accept this Amendment, which certainly does not make the clause more clear. The meaning of the clause is perfectly plain, and nothing will be gained by accepting the Amendment. I, therefore, ask the Committee to reject it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I fail to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks what his reason is for opposing the Amendment. Do I understand him to say, after what has occurred in reference to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend just now, that the Government are so exceedingly nice in regard to the phraseology of this clause that they will not accept the words "after the passing of this Act," because there may be tautology? We were told a few minutes ago that the capacity of the Irish Resident Magistrates is such that it is necessary for the Government to put their clause into bad English in order to enable those gentlemen to understand it. But in regard to this Amendment the position of the Government is this—that these gentlemen—the Resident Magistrates—are so nice upon the question of grammar, that their feelings will be shocked if the clause contains a single superfluous word. I will only point out that the words "after the passing of this Act" are usually employed in Acts of Parliament.
  424
  No doubt, the words "under this Act" appear in the clause; but it does not necessarily follow that the word "shall" involves the future tense. The Government intend, and we intend, that these clauses shall not be retrospective in their operation, but that they shall only apply to crimes committed after the passing of the Act; and, therefore, I do not see that the innocent Amendment I have proposed does more than put in clearer language that intention. Why not insert "after the passing of the Act" if they really mean after the passing of the Act?
  MR. CHANCE: The first words of the 1st clause are—
  "Where a sworn information has been made that any offence to which this section applies has been committed in a proclaimed district."
  The 2nd clause contains the words "in a proclaimed district." But the district cannot be proclaimed until after the Act has been passed, and, therefore, the section must apply to the future. The same point arose on the 1st clause, in reference to the power to enable the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to put the clause in force; and in that discussion we discovered, to our surprise and alarm, and certainly much to the surprise of the English language, that a proclaimed district meant a district not proclaimed, but which may be proclaimed. The Chief Secretary for Ireland tells us the meaning of the clause is perfectly clear; but we know that bad grammar often has some hidden and subtle meaning, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how it is perfectly clear, and that it is not to deal with an offence committed before the drafting of the Act. If it is desired to prevent a prosecution for offences committed before the passing of the Act, then I insist that the Amendment is necessary. We do not now want the Government to be grammatical; we have given up that point; but we do want them to make the clause intelligible, and they can only do that by accepting the Amendment, and clearly showing what they mean.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Take the case of conspiracy. Are your inquiries to extend over several counties and over a long period of time? If not, how are you to control the Resident Magistrates, unless these words are inserted in the

  425
  clause? Suppose that the Act passes on the 1st of August, and that an offence committed on the 2nd of August has to be proved by some publication in a newspaper which took place on the 1st of July. Are we to be told that the Resident Magistrate may allow evidence to be given of a publication in a newspaper before the passing of the Act? I maintain that, as the clause stands, he would be so allowed; and if that is the intention of the Government, why not make it perfectly plain? We know what took place in regard to the case of Mr. William O'Brien and Mr. John Dillon. In order to provide absolute proof of the connection of Mr. William O'Brien with United Ireland in 1887, a letter was produced which was written by Mr. William O'Brien in 1881, in order to show that he was still the editor of United Ireland, five or six years after having written the letter. That was the only primâ facie evidence before the Resident Magistrate to prove that Mr. William O'Brien was the editor of that paper now. Suppose the Government put the editor of United Ireland under this clause, and subject him to a preliminary inquiry, are we to have this letter of 1881 trotted out again as primâ facie evidence? Unless the words "after the passing of this Act "are inserted in this clause, the Resident Magistrate would undoubtedly admit this letter as proof, and would allow a case to go to the jury, being himself both jury and Judge at the same time. I put it to the Attorney General for Ireland whether, proof being tendered of something done before the passing of the Act, the Resident Magistrate would not admit that proof? I think the clause, as it stands, is most unreasonable, and I am of opinion that the attitude the Government are taking is unfair. If they really intend that the Act is only to date from the time it receives the Sign Manual of the Queen, it is not reasonable for them to refuse the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 123: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 152.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have now to move, in the first line of the clause, to leave out the word "commit," in order to substitute the words "be proved, on the complaint of any injured person, to
  426
  have committed." The clause would then read—
  "Any person who shall be proved, on the complaint of any injured person, to have committed any of the following offences."
  The object of the Amendment is to decide in whom the initiation of the prosecution shall rest. The Government will now be tested as to the reality of their desire to put down crime by the way in which they treat this Amendment. In Ireland, hitherto, no individual was ever prosecuted personally, and there has grown up a practice which Mr. George Waters, the County Court Judge for Waterford, has happily termed "intimidation in the air," when a crime is alleged to have been committed the police always prosecute. No person alleged to have been intimidated ever prosecutes. Mr. Waters had before him a case in which a man was alleged to have said—
  "I advise the Irish people to have nothing to do with evicted farms, and I say further that a person who takes an evicted farm is a person who is unworthy of social amenities."
  This language was not directed against any individual; but the man who made use of it was prosecuted by the police on the ground that he had intimidated some person unknown. Now, I wish by this Amendment to get rid of the possibility of prosecuting any man for intimidating some person or persons unknown. In the case to which I have referred, Mr. George Waters decided that there is no such offence as what he called "intimidation in the air." I may add, that Mr. Waters came to that conclusion, after a Resident Magistrate had convicted the man and sentenced him to two or three months' imprisonment. Therefore, I think the Government ought to say at once whether "intimidation in the air" is their view in passing this Act, or whether it ought not to be necessary to produce the corpus of some individual who alleges that his mind or body has been injured by the acts or words of some other individual. I hope the Government will see their way to accept so reasonable a proposition. I think it is a monstrous thing that the police force in Ireland should have nothing to do except to spend their time in getting up these offences in the interests of the landlords, and that, in addition to that, they should be allowed to act as prosecutors, taking out both sum-

  427
  mons and warrant, without putting the injured person to any trouble whatever. I have no doubt that the Under Secretary for Ireland would say that the intimidation is so great that it is impossible to get anybody in Ireland to prosecute. But let me remind him that this Bill is to put an end to intimidation, and we are told by the First Lord of the Treasury that it will make Ireland happy, contented, and prosperous. The right hon. Gentleman says—" Once pass this Bill, and the intimidation, which is now going about like a foul spectre, will be laid," and, therefore, no person need be in the least degree afraid of intimidation, because law and order will be in such splendid working order that everyone will be able to go about, what has been called in euphemistic terms, his "lawful business"—that is, the business of the landlords, and resort to land-grabbing and other occupations of the same kind. I maintain that the person aggrieved ought to be the person who makes the complaint. In regard to the most serious crimes the individual is never the prosecutor, but you have the Crown Prosecutor, the Crown Solicitor, and everything emanating from the Crown. We are told that there is no necessity for individual initiation, but that we must rely on the State for everything. We are read a lesson every day upon that point by The Times. What we want is a little local option in the matter and not to have policemen "nosing" and scenting opportunities for prosecution. When once they got a quarry before them they hunt it down until it gets before the Resident Magistrate, who is himself an ex-policeman, or a disbanded soldier. If my Amendment is accepted it will remove a most irritating blister from the body politic in Ireland. In civil actions the Government do not interfere. If a Member of the Government made a bargain with me and did not observe that bargain I should not apply to the State for my remedy. Then why, in offences which concern quasi civil rights, am I not entitled to take the same course in a civil action? The Government will not be prepared to provide the money for payment of the expenses unless, perhaps, it is a civil action against The Times. A man goes along a road and he is grinned at or whistled at. In a famous case which occurred some time
  428
  ago a man was accused of whistling at a landlord as he went along the road, in what the police called a "derisive manner," and he got six months for it. Now, I think, the landlord ought to have been left to his own remedy. It was not a criminal act, and ought only to have been the subject of a civil action for damages, although I very much doubt whether, under the circumstances, any prosecutor would have obtained civil damages at all. In cases of this kind the aggrieved person should bring his own prosecution, and if such prosecutions were initiated by individuals they would come into Court without the pomp, circumstance, and panoply of a great State trial. Under the Act of 1882, there was in no instance a private prosecution, but in every instance the prosecution was the act of the State, and consequently the Resident Magistrate had a mental stimulous administered to him as Crown prosecutor. I venture to think that if individuals who conceive themselves to have been wronged were left to prosecute at their own expense, they would appraise the inquiries received at their real value, and very few cases would find their way into Court. Under these circumstances, I hope the Government will see their way to remove this course of itritation from the Bill, and allow every injured individual to take his own remedy as he would be required to do in a civil case.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 14, leave out "commit," and insert "be proved on the complaint of any injured person, to have committed."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'commit' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HOLMES: The hon. and learned Member in moving the Amendment has referred to the analogy between civil actions and criminal prosecutions. Now, there is no analogy whatever between the two; and, I think, it is generally accepted by lawyers that there is an essential distinction as to the foundations on which a civil action reposes. A civil action is brought to vindicate the right of a particular individual, and not for the purpose of redressing a public wrong. But when a prisoner is prosecuted in a Criminal Court, whether a Superior Court, or a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, it is for the purpose of

  429
  vindicating public justice. Accordingly, the law provides, and it is the law of England and Scotland, as well as Ireland, that criminal prosecutions may be brought forward in one of two ways. Even in England the Queen is always nominally the prosecutor, although an individual frequently sets the law in motion. In England there have been many instances in which an individual has taken upon himself the responsibility of dealing with a criminal prosecution; but in Ireland public prosecutions have been almost universal for a long time past, and I see no reason why the usual practice should be deviated from. A Royal Commission was appointed a good many years ago to inquire into the question, and in their Report the Commissioners spoke highly of the system which exists in Ireland and Scotland, and recommended that it should be extended to England. In Ireland the principle of setting the law in motion by the Public Prosecutor is the principle which underlies the Criminal Law. In the case of this clause there are a considerable number of offences mentioned in the second and subsequent sections, and it is not for the sake of the individual aggrieved, but for the sake of the public and public justice that there should be some one to put the law in motion. Prosecutions are instituted not for the redress primarily or solely of a wrong to an individual, but for the good of the public. It may not be safe or expedient for the individual to prosecute, and he may frequently prefer to acquiesce in the wrong. That would be an injury to the public, and, therefore, it is necessary to have some machinery for putting the law in motion. Accordingly we have framed the clause in this way, and, I may add, that it is in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act. The hon. and learned Member has spoken of some public official who used the phrase "intimidation in the air." I do not quite understand what the hon. and learned Member means by that.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It was not my expression. It was a judicial expression.
  MR. HOLMES: It may be a judicial expression, but I do not understand it. What I do understand is, that in a case such as he has mentioned a prosecution ought not to be undertaken.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any objection to make that decision binding?
  MR. HOLMES: As I have already stated, I know nothing whatever about the decision; but what I do say is that it has been decided in such a case as that referred to by the hon. and learned Member that a prosecution would not lie.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Government provide a record of decisions so that we may have a continuity of proceedings? The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to treat the decision of one of the Government officials with any great respect. Here, in this section, you are inaugurating a machinery for the punishment of a large class of offences; and what I want to know is whether care will be taken that a decision given at one moment shall not be practically overriden by the decision of another Resident Magistrate in another case, because what I fear is that—"What in the captain is but a choleric word may in the soldier be rank blasphemy." The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not met one of my points at all—namely, that there should be some individual concerned in the prosecution who has been damnified. It is no answer for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the State has been damnified. In this case, the Resident Magistrate is the State; he is appointed by the State; appointed at the pleasure of the State; and his salary may be raised or lowered at the will of the State. Therefore, the Resident Magistrate and the State are convertible terms, and it is not what the State thinks, but what the Resident Magistrate thinks. We are told that this is an Act passed for securing national liberty and for the prevention of crime. We are also told, in the language of the Primrose League, that it is an Act passed to put down crime, Boycotting, Moonlighting, and intimidation. There must be some intimidation, and there must be crime committed against some individual, and yet the Government meet my Amendment by saying that the initiation of a prosecution must rest with the police. There is another point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not touched at all—namely, that in any prosecution it is necessary to show that some person has been injured. My Amendment deals

  431
  with both points, because under it it would not only be necessary to show that some person had been injured, but to leave the prosecution to that particular individual. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told me that in such a case as that which I refer to a prosecution would not lie, and he says that he does not understand the words used by the learned Judge at Waterford as to "intimidation in the air." In that case the prosecution was initiated by the Crown Prosecutor. I think there was great force in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the necessity of vindicating a certain class of offences by the State. But surely it is only reasonable to provide that when an offence has been committed it should have been committed upon somebody, and that the person on whom it has been committed should prosecute.
  MR. HOLMES: I have no desire to enter into the points which have been raised by the hon. and learned Member. My contention is that the clause is perfectly clear as it stands.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: There is a fallacy in the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in reference to the system of public prosecutions in Ireland. The system recommended by the Commission to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, was the system of having both in the Superior and Infertor Courts some local person charged with the prosecution of offences. But that principle has been largely extended by successive Governments during the last 13 or 14 years, and a very considerable number of offences have been dealt with. Latterly a sessional solicitor attends and prosecutes at Petty Sessions; but it was never part of the recommendation of the Commission, and could not have been part of the immemorial usage of Ireland into which that Commission inquired, that the constabulary established by Sir Robert Peel should be part and parcel of the system to which the Commission referred. If this principle were adopted in England and Scotland, instead of a police force of 30,000 men it would be necessary to increase it to at least 85,000, in order that there should be the same proportion to the population as that which exists in regard to the population of Ireland. In my opinion, nothing has done so much to bring the law into con-
  432
  tempt in Ireland as the necessity for keeping in action some 14,000 persons, who are always on the look out for something to justify their very existence. It is a serious blunder in the Bill, and a serious mistake for any Government to think that by putting upon the police duties which they ought not to discharge, and by putting them in the odious position of being prosecutors and litigants, any advantage is to derived. That was not part of the recommendation of the Commission to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. But what they did recommend, and what this Amendment in no way interferes with, was that the system of the representation of the Crown by some local person in a prosecution in its various stages should be instituted in this country, as is the case in Ireland and Scotland now. No Englishman would stand such a harassing system as that to which we have been subjected for years. What would the English people think if they were subjected for five years to some hundred-thousand police constables going through the country, and justifying their existence by constant prosecutions? My opinion is that there would be universal discontent just as there is in Ireland. I believe that is one of the reasons why the law has been made so very unpopular in Ireland. I come now to the more immediate point involved in the Amendment, from which I have diverted, away to the reference made by the Attorney General for Ireland to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. How do the Government justify the interference of the police with the tenure of farms, and the forcible possession of houses? After making repeated local inquiries, I have come to the conclusion that a great mistake has been made. Attention has been called to a case tried before Chief Baron Pallas, in which, at Gweedore, certain houses had been left by the landlord without a caretaker. In that case the police imagined that the old circular issued under the Act of 1882 in reference to Crimes was still actually in force, and they occupied themselves in watching as bailiffs the houses from which the tenants had been evicted—houses which were not only never re-entered, but which had never been closed. It was the interpretation of that circular which substantially gave rise to the prosecution before the Lord Chief Baron. In that case the

  433
  Lord Chief Baron asked for the circular, and an objection was raised that it was a privileged document, that could not be gone into. I have only quoted this case in order to show that the interference of the police in regard to transactions under the Land Bill, and in reference to property, has been excessive, that they have pushed themselves unnecessarily into private matters, and that they make themselves the bailiffs' agents, and partizans of the landlords of the district. I entertain very strong feelings in the matter, and I think it is one which ought to be brought again and again under the notice of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, so that the Government may make up their mind before this Bill passes that the police shall not convert themselves into mere partizans upon either side in any locality. I think the provisions of this measure ought to be restricted to criminal offences, and not enter into disputes about the possession of property, and breaches of the law, or riots, or unlawful assembly, which are matters that can be made the subject of civil proceedings. As the law is at present administered in Ireland, and as the police are constituted, I know that they are constantly employed in connection with offences against property, in which scarcely any injury whatever has been committed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly correct when he says that there may be cases of public policy which would require the interference of the Public Prosecutor; but there are heaps of cases which may arise under this Act in which the initiation should be left in the hands of the individual injured, who ought to be the person to make the complaint to the magistrates.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: This Amendment raises two questions, each of which is of great importance. We acknowledge that there are cases which may arise where the initiative may be left to the authorities; but, on the other hand, there are many cases where we think the initiative of the police would be most injurious to the public peace and tranquillity. That is the first point raised by the Amendment, and the second point, equally important, is this—whether, in order to bring this clause into operation, there should be an individual distinctly indicated. I think the Attorney General for Ireland is
  434
  quite right in saying that if you have a state of intimidation in a district, you may have an unwillingness on the part of a person to come forward and take the initiative, and that the Government will be right in retaining the initiative of the police in all cases where it can be distinctly proved that an individual has sustained injury. I believe I am right in saying that my hon. and learned Friend who drew up the Amendment will have no objection to amend the Amendment, so as to cover that case. It is a case in which, I think, the police have a right to take the initiative; but they have no right to take the initiative in a class of cases referred to by my hon. and learned Friend—that is to say, where the injury is not physical injury, is not injury to person, or a distinct injury to property, but a case in which a civil action would be brought. It is only right, in my opinion, that the Committee should establish a clear distinction between the initiative in the two cases. The second point of the Amendment is even more important than the first; and the Attorney General for Ireland seemed to me rather to confirm than to weaken our case by the statements he made upon it. What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman do? He referred to the language of the clause by way of proving that there is no necessity for the Amendment. Now, I contend that the language of the clause carries out and confirms the contention of my hon. and learned Friend instead of disposing of it. The Attorney General for Ireland says that this Bill follows the same lines as the Crimes Act of 1882. Let me take the last point first. Our experience of the Crimes Act of 1882 is the very reason why we object to the phraseology of the present clause. None of us would raise any objection to the clause if it were directed against violence or intimidation, against a particular individual. What we object to is that the clause does not pre-suppose injury to an individual at all, but would enable a Resident Magistrate to exercise the powers of the Act against a class or classes. How did that operate under the Act of 1882? we raised the very same question when that Bill was before the House. Of course, our arguments were treated in the manner in which they usually are when a Bill like this is before the House, and our fears were regarded as entirely imaginary.

  435
  But what took place? Let me give an instance to show how the Act will work—one of the worst episodes of the régime of the Crimes Act of 1882. My hon. Friend who now represents the College Green Division of Dublin (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) went down to Westmeath. He made a speech, urging upon the farmers of Westmeath the duty of giving a fair day's wage for a fair day's labour to the labourers of Westmeath. No advice, as I think, could be more advisable or more necessary. What happened? My hon. Friend's language was not accompanied by intimidation of any kind whatever. It was simply exhortation and advice, but in no stronger language than was necessary by the state of the case. My hon. Friend was brought up before the magistrates—the very class of gentlemen who are to have the power of putting this clause into operation; and they held him to have been guilty of intimidation, not towards a particular individual, not towards a certain number of persons in the district who were specified, but to the farmers of Westmeath at large. Now, the farmers of Westmeath, I may say, are about as robust a class of men as any that exists in the whole of the country. Yet the proposition was gravely laid down and carried into force by the Resident Magistrate, and afterwards by the County Court Judge, that the speech of my hon. Friend came within the purview of a clause like this, because it was calculated to intimidate a class consisting of 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000 farmers of the county. Immediately after my hon. Friend was imprisoned on the accusation that he had attempted to intimidate the farmers of Westmeath, a vacancy arose in the Representation of Westmeath, and the very men he was accused of intimidating returned him on several nomination papers, and there was not the ghost of an opposition to his election. As a matter of fact, the class he was said to have intimidated made their intimidator their honoured Representative in this House; and not only did they do that, but they paid his election expenses, and subscribed a handsome testimonial to him. There you had a man charged with intimidating a class who sent him to Parliament, and, to his and their honour, generously and liberally rewarded him for his services to them.
  436
  Therefore, our fears are not imaginary; but I am dealing with a well-known precedent, in which my hon. Friend was subjected to gross outrages at the hands of political opponents, was condemned to the plank bed, to wear the prison garb, and to clean out his cell. Further than that, the governor of the gaol endeavoured to impose on him various things which were not included in the prison discipline, merely to degrade him; and at one time my hon. Friend was confined to his cell for two or three days without enjoying a moment of fresh air; and it was while he was being so treated that it was announced to him that those he was accused of intimidating had elected him as their Representative. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland knows all these facts as well, and possibly better, than I do; and yet he appeals to the precedent of the Act of 1882, not as a strong argument in favour of our proposition, but as an argument against it. Again, if we compare the words of the clause with those of any corresponding enactment for England, we shall find that in the latter case, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) has pointed out, there must be alleged intimidation against some definite person, his wife or child, or injury to his property, whereas the whole purpose of the phraseology of this clause shows that it has been left studiously and intentionally vague, so as to include acts which, in the opinion of the Resident Magistrates, are calculated to intimidate a specified individual or individuals of a class consisting of many thousand persons. In the English law a crime must have been directed against a particular individual, and you must be able to bring up this particular individual, and to prove injury to his person or property. Let me turn from the limited scope of the phraseology of the English Act to the equally studied phraseology of the Irish Bill—namely, that—
  "(1) Any person who shall take part in any criminal conspiracy to compel or induce any person or persona, either not to fulfil his or their legal obligations, or not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation; or to interfere with the administration of the law. Any person who shall wrongfully, and without

  437
  legal authority, use violence or intimidation (a) to or towards any person or persons, with a view to cause any person or persons either to do any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to do; or (b) to or towards any person or persons, in consequence either of his or their having done any act which he or they had a legal right to do, or of his or their having abstained from doing any act which he or they had a legal right to abstain from doing."
  Let me take the plural number, with its intentional vagueness, as it appears in the Bill. In the first place, in the English Act, there must have been force and intimidation or violence used to a particular individual. But, here, all you have to do is to use words in the mildest form; and by the Definition Clause of the Bill it is declared that—
  "The expression 'intimidation' includes any words or acts intended and calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, or to any member of his family, or to any person in his employment, or in fear of any injury to or loss of property, business, employment, or means of living."
  So that the words used may not be intended to intimidate even a class, so long as, in the opinion, not of the class itself, but of the Resident Magistrate, they are calculated to intimidate that class. In every way I look at this clause it appears to be framed in the most objectionable manner. In the first place, the initiative is not to come from the person injured, but from the policeman and the State. In the second place, the injury is not defined as against a particular individual, but it may be against a class consisting of many thousands of persons. In the third place, even the class itself is not allowed the initiative, or, indeed, any opinion in the matter. The words which are used may not be words which the class against whom they are used regard as intimidation, but they are to be words which, in the opinion of another person—the Resident Magistrate—are calculated to intimidate. That is the way in which the clause is to be worked. In other words, the Resident Magistrate is to meet for and work for the people of the country. This Amendment, therefore, goes to the very heart and core of the Bill, and nothing shows more clearly than the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland the desperate and evil purposes to which the clause will be
  438
  applied if it is to remain in its present shape. The Amendment, therefore, is one which we must press upon the Government to the utmost of our power.
  MR. DILLON: I think this is an exceedingly important Amendment, and I wish once more, at this late hour, to protest against the habit of quoting the provisions of the Bill of 1882 as a sufficient justification of the present measure. We find that some of the Amendments which we are now moving were moved on that Bill, and when we have fully justified them by the arguments we have used, are we to be told, when experience shows that gross and serious mistakes have been made in the Irish Administration, that it is sufficient to say that so-and-so was in a Bill so many years ago? Are we to be told, for instance, if we wish to admit Irish leaseholders to the benefit of the Land Act, that they cannot be admitted because they are not in the Act of 1881? I hope the Committee will see the absurdity of carrying on such a mode of argument as that, and that it will see that, except in the case of legislation of an unprecedented character, no one ever thinks of basing his case upon such a contention. We complain now, as we complained in 1882, that this clause is so worded that it may be used by the officials of the Executive in Ireland in cases where no real grievance exists, and in cases where individuals, although by the Executive they may be alleged to have been Boycotted or intimidated, would not desire the law to be put in force at all. I say that our experience shows most clearly that this is by no means an imaginary fear on our part; it has been done continually. We have in Ireland the most multitudinous police in the whole world; we have four times as many as are necessary for the maintenance of law and order, and not only are the police so numerous, but there is an elaborate system of promotion going on in the ranks of the police—namely, a system based on the practice of giving marks for good conduct, the result of which is that you have every police constable from the 1st of January to the 31st of December in a state of intense eagerness to discover some crime or other. The men who get the best record and the most marks are those who get up the most cases, and thus we have the policemen outstepping the ordinary

  439
  functions of the police; instead of confining themselves to protecting the rights of property they are ferreting about from morning till night trying to discover some-thing that will justify their existence and abnormal pay, and manufacturing something when they cannot discover any real case. I will mention one instance within my own knowledge to show how this is done. I am not quite certain whether the Solicitor General for Ireland will consider this a case of very great hardship, but I contend that it is so. In many districts in Ireland where public feeling is excited, as it always is by evictions on a large scale, where the police know that places of entertainment and shops will be greatly injured in their trade by supplying the police and agents of the emergency association, and where there is no difficulty of getting food or what is required in the town, they have gone round to demand of traders that they should supply them and the other persons I have referred to; and this has been done for the purpose of putting them between Scylla and Charybdis. Can anything be more cruel than that? The police know that all the legislation you pass cannot compel the shopkeepers in Ireland to deal with persons they do not want to deal with; and deliberately, in order to punish these men because they are Nationalists and have taken part in the Nationalist movement, they go round to the shopkeepers and say they must supply them and the bailiff's and emergency men whom they take round with them. In this way the shop-keepers are put in a dangerous position, for they will either have their licences opposed at the next Sessions or lose their trade. The Attorney General for Ireland pointed out that one sub-section of this clause makes it an offence to use intimidation towards any person. Of course, the act which I have described will be held to be intimidation towards emergency men and agents; the whole business will be manufactured from beginning to end, and made the means of most grievous and outrageous persecution against men who have committed no real crime. There can be no doubt that the clause will be used in that way; but this is only one instance out of a great number where it may be used by the police for prosecuting persons for their own ends. I find that in 1882 an Amendment exactly similar to
  440
  the present was moved, and cases were quoted showing the gross persecution which could be carried on under the clause. It was shown clearly at that time that over and over again representations were made to the House, on the authority of Resident Magistrates and the police, of cases of intimidation in which the people alleged to be intimidated signed of their own free will statements that they had not been intimidated, and that there was no foundation for the charge. Of course we were met with the answer that these statements were wrung out of the persons who made them by fresh intimidation. I put it to hon. Members whether the business of any country can go on when its citizens are so weak in the legs that they want policemen to stand by and protect them? I ask where is the matter to end? Is this House to carry on the system for ever? Surely a justification of our present attitude is to be found in the fact that, although you would not listen to our arguments in 1882, now, after five years, we are told that the state of things is worse than ever. It is an evil principle from beginning to end. You have taught the people of Ireland, by proceedings of this kind, to be utterly and absolutely unreliant on themselves, and to rely entirely on the interference of the police. It is a curse which every Chief Secretary you have sent to Ireland, and every Lord Lieutenant has been continually complaining of, that these people are perpetually running like whipped children to Dublin Castle, and begging to be protected. They say that they are so afraid of the Nationalists that they want the Government to protect them without anyone knowing it or whispering a single word about the matter. I say that such a system is as destructive to the people on whose behalf it is invoked as it is to the rest of the population. If it were true that such an elaborate system of intimidation existed in Ireland as you represent, I say that no one would dare to invoke the tremendous machinery of the law which you have provided. I say that it would be the duty of the Government to declare that such a class of people as I have referred to do not deserve protection. You are acting very foolishly in not telling these people that they must show themselves to be something more

  441
  than women or little cowardly schoolboys, and that if they have a Coercion Act passed on their behalf, at least they shall show that they have the courage to come forward and say that they have been injured.
  MR. CLANCY: I should like the Committee to understand what is my opinion of the working of this Act. As soon as the Act is passed, a printed form will be made out containing a list of the offences punishable under it; this form will be sent to the police barracks to be filled up week by week, and then a regular competition will commence among the police as to who shall put the greatest number of offences on the list. That is not a mere speculation or theory of my own, because, at the present moment, something very like this system is in existence in the City of Dublin and other parts of Ireland. On one side of the form is placed a list of the arrest cases, and on the other side a list of summons cases, and these forms are handed round the police barracks, and have, as I have said, to be filled up week after week. The result of this is that there is a struggle among the police to get the largest number of cases opposite their names, and those who do not show a favourable record, run a great risk of punishment by degradation. Within the last few months, a sergeant in the Dublin police has been put on half-pay for three months, the superintendent of his division having reported that he was an inefficient officer because he had not sent in a sufficient number of complaints against the publicans of Dublin and his fellow constables. Now, that is a very remarkable instance; but there is a case of another sergeant in the same division of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who has been refused promotion on the same grounds—namely, that he had not made a sufficient number of complaints weekly and instituted a sufficient number of prosecutions. The result of this was that, as everyone knows, his juniors were promoted over his head. There are many of these frivolous prosecutions commenced by policemen. It was only the other day that a member of the Town Council of the City of Dublin was summoned before a Police Court, and fined for an offence which it was afterwards found he had never committed. Again, persons have been fined in Dublin
  442
  for the alleged offence of hooting at the Lord Lieutenant, but, upon investigation, it was found that there was no truth in the charge, and the fines were remitted. What has happened in Dublin has happened all over the country, and will again happen all over the country when this Act is passed. The first step of some subordinate in Dublin Castle will be to make out a list of offences and circulate forms to the police in Ireland, intimating to the constables that they had better be active in working the Act, and the result will be wide spread injustice and false accusations against innocent men. I do not know whether the Government think that this will conduce to the peace of Ireland, and to the restoration of that social order which they have so much at heart; but my opinion is that it will have a directly opposite effect, and that in a short time you will have the whole of the country in a state of social chaos and disorder, compared with which the present state of things is peace and quietness.
  MR.FLYNN: This Amendment is, I find, of such importance that I have no hesitation in saying that we must press it to the fullest extent on the attention of the Government. Many cases have occurred in Ireland, which enable us to understand the probable injustice that will be done to a large number of persons if the Amendment is not accepted. The Amendment recites that for a prosecution before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, it is necessary that the offence should be proved on the complaint on the injured person. I know an instance in which a Town Councillor in Cork was brought up and charged with making a speech, in which he had uttered words of an intimidatory character, by which certain persons in the locality were deterred from doing what they had a legal right to do, and the opinion was obtained from the presiding County Court Judge that the Act of Parliament was such that no public speaker ought to speak from a platform without there was a lawyer at his elbow. The gentleman I refer to made use of language of a perfectly legitimate character; he said it was the bounden duty of the tenant farmers in that district to combine for protection against rack-renting; but he had no desire in his mind, nor would any fair reading of his speech lead anyone to believe that any person

  443
  had been intimidated. This gentleman, however, got two months in gaol, and had to sleep on a plank bed. I say, therefore, that the Government ought to accept this Amendment, which is a most reasonable one, and is only intended to prevent the recurrence in future of mistakes that have happened in the past. The Government say that they have no desire that the Bill should be used against their political opponents, or the rights of free speech; but that it will be used against crime and criminals, although every step we have taken in these discussions shows that it is intended for nothing of the kind. The more we progress through the clauses of the Bill the more do we discover the real intentions of the Government, and the more clearly do we perceive the way in which the Act will be worked in Ireland. We do not intend to continue the discussion of the Amendment any longer, and we are willing to take the Division at the earliest possible moment; but we must certainly express our disappointment that this, and recent Amendments of this character, which guard against the abuse of the Act, without in any way diminishing its force as against crime and criminals, have not been accepted by the Government. We trust that the Government will deal more reasonably with the other Amendments which we shall have to propose, or we may be compelled to discuss them at even greater length than the present.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 131: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 153.)
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The Amendment which I am about to propose has for its object to provide that the offences mentioned in the 3rd subsection and committed in any part of Ireland; that is to say, the offence to taking part in any riot or unlawful assembly, and the other offences named, may be tried summarily. I think the Amendment sets out in the plainest and briefest terms the object I have in view. This is an extension of the Crimes Act to all Ireland, and it exempts the Government from the necessity of proclaiming any part of the country in order to punish offences against public order, and, stated in those terms, I cannot see why the Government should have
  444
  the slightest objection to my proposal. I recommend the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the ground that it will save him from the necessity of proclaiming the district, because he will be able to send to the Resident Magistrates at Belfast at once, and they will then try summarily those cases of public disorder which so frequently disgrace that part of Ireland. Coming from the North of Ireland, where I have lived all my days, and representing the district in which I was born, I would appeal to the Committee to consider for a moment the position of the majority of the people of Ulster, who are said to possess all the franchises and rights of British subjects. By the process of historical events in Ulster, all the large farms are in the hands of Protestants, the old race being in the occupation of farms of small size and value only. It is well known that when riots occur in the district the trials which afterwards take place are of such a character that, after 15 years' experience as a lawyer, I am able to say that it is only in cases where it would be perfectly scandalous, if it were not done, that justice is obtained, It is idle to talk about justice not being done, and the disagreement of juries in the West of Ireland, because whatever has been done there in that respect has been initiated by Orange juries in Ulster. What I want the Government to do is to state that when this particular offence of holding unlawful assemblies and rioting occurs, that the offenders may be tried in a summary way, without the stigma of proclamation being put on the district. I know that some hon. Members think that the Amendment will have a prejudicial effect on meetings held in the South of Ireland; but to this I answer that the distinction between a proclaimed district and an unproclaimed one is the difference between tweedledee and tweedledum.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 14, after "commit," insert "an offence mentioned in sub-section (3) of this Clause anywhere in Ireland, or shall."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Amendment which the hon. Member has moved, and still more

  445
  that which he put on the Paper, is no doubt a large extension of the Bill as originally drafted, and we ourselves would have been unwilling to depart from the wording of the Bill as laid down. But we are willing to admit that there are some reasons on the side of the Amendment, and with certain qualifications, we shall be prepared to accept it. The hon. Member in moving the Amendment has somewhat altered its scope, but I think that in so doing he has not improved it. As it originally stood, it referred to all classes of offences analogous in their kind to that mentioned under sub-section (a). By the Act of 1885, passed to amend the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, it was made an offence in England to obstruct a constable or peace officer in the execution of his duty; and, under these circumstances, I should prefer, if the hon. Gentleman has no objection, that he should move his Amendment in its original form, and the Government, with the qualification I have alluded to, will be willing to accept it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: We cannot at all accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as the form in which my hon. Friend placed his Amendment on the Paper was entirely owing to a clerical mistake. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment in the form in which my hon. Friend proposed it, the matter is settled; but certainly we shall oppose any extension of it beyond the limits which he proposes, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not feel in a position to accept it as proposed, I would strongly advise my hon. Friend to proceed with it.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think it is clear that there has been a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will alter his position with regard to the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We do not, of course, wish to take advantage of a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member; and I will not press the view which I first laid before the Committee. We are willing to accept the Amendment as moved by the hon. Member.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Mem-
  446
  ber for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), I rise to move that the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland upon sworn information shall be obtained before any prosecution is instituted under this section. I do not think that the Government will allege that if the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland is necessary in the case of the offences under the 1st clause it is not equally necessary under the 2nd clause. It would be a monstrous thing if this Bill were to be put in operation by any irresponsible person in Ireland; and, therefore, in order to prevent any improper use of this sub-section by the Legal Authorities, I think it should be incumbent on them to do what they will have to do under the 1st section—namely, obtain the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland before proceedings are instituted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 15, after "may" insert "the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland upon sworn information being first obtained."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The effect of this Amendment would be to require the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland for a number of proceedings which could be otherwise instituted by the individuals themselves, and entail an excessive and unnecessary amount of work upon him. This proposal would have the effect of introducing an anomaly into the clause which is a thing that from the first we have endeavoured to avoid. The Amendment is, therefore, objectionable on every ground, and the Government are unable to agree to it.
  MR. CHANCE: I cannot follow the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the cases under the clause are cases usually dealt with summarily; because this is a new and extraordinary jurisdiction, the application of which depends on the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant. I admit that it would be undesirable to prevent any private prosecutor from exercising his right of bringing his case forward. I would, therefore, ask whether the Government will accept the Amendment in an amended form so as to limit its operation to prosecutions instituted by con-

  447
  stables and Crown officials? We desire to prevent constables and others hatching up bogus cases by providing that the Attorney General for Ireland shall satisfy himself that there are grounds for the institution of proceedings under this clause.
  MR. HOLMES: It would not be possible for the Attorney General to exercise direct control over all the prosecutions which may take place; but I point out that we should be responsible to Parliament for those undertaken by the Crown officials. The Government are unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member; but he would, of course, be within his right in taking the sense of the Committee upon it.
  MR. CHANCE: I understand that the Attorney General for Ireland claims to exercise a negative control in these cases, on the ground that it would be impossible for anyone to exercise a direct control over them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that it is his duty to exercise control, and what we propose is to make that control effective. I hope the Government will allow us to take a Division, not upon this Amendment, which I admit is informal, but upon the Amendment in the altered form which we think desirable.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "sworn information."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That those words stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Further Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add at the end, "in all prosecutions initiated by constables or Crown officials."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland being first obtained in all prosecutions initiated by constables or Crown officials' be there inserted."
  COLONEL NOLAN: The objection to the argument of the Attorney General for Ireland is, that he is applying to this question the principles of ordinary law, as if the ordinary law applied to the whole of Great Britain. He said that the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland could not be obtained, be-
  448
  cause it is the function of every individual to be at liberty to prosecute, but our argument is that the House of Commons has entrusted to the Government abnormal powers which would not be entrusted to a Government anywhere else. We say, if you have this power given to you, do not let any private individual put the machinery of the Act in motion. The Government have asked for these powers; they have said we cannot govern Ireland without them. For my own part, I do not think those powers should be given, but we are giving them, and we contend that they ought not to be exercised by ignorant and prejudiced persons in Ireland; and there are many ill-tempered persons there who will be only too ready to make use of the Act for vindictive and revengeful purposes. Thus much with regard to the general principle of the Amendment; but we have now to consider it as amended. The hon. Member for Kilkenny asks that, in cases where the Crown officials prosecute in Ireland, the Attorney General for Ireland shall take the direct responsibility for the proceedings. Certainly, if what the Attorney General for Ireland has stated be true, this Act is much more dangerous than we anticipated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now declares that the Act will be put in force so often that no one individual will be able to be responsible for all the prosecutions which will take place under it. That is a statement which we must read by the light of common-sense; we must recollect that he has the assistance of a very able lawyer, whose only misfortune is that he sits for no Irish constituency. But I am perfectly aware that, if the Government will give fees to Irish barristers, they can always command a large amount of legal talent in Ireland. There is, in fact, no difficulty in the way of the Law Officers obtaining any amount of legal assistance in that country. Now, if this Act is to be put in force to such an extent that the Attorney General for Ireland cannot be responsible, and that the Solicitor General cannot be responsible for the prosecutions which are to take place; if they are not in a position to control the working of this Act, then I ask the Committee to consider whether it is safe to allow every constable in the country to assume a responsibility which

  449
  the Law Officers of the Crown shrink from. This is an abnormal Act which is against the liberty of the subject; but if the Government are to have it, at least let them be responsible for its administration. I am aware that the Attorney General for Ireland is not a responsible Minister in the highest sense of the word, and that he is not directly responsible for his own acts in connection with this Bill; but he is, at any rate, a far more responsible person than an ordinary constable would be, and if we had this Amendment inserted in the Bill we should be able to attack the Government and get any particular case investigated much better than if we had to go against an ordinary constable. That is one view of the case. It is a Party view no doubt; but it is in accordance with the practice of making the highest officials responsible. I will take a case in my own district. We occasionally have there a constable who wants to come into collision with the National League—I will not mention his name—but you are going to give that man an enormously increased power, which will enable him to institute prosecution after prosecution, and to be placed in a position to cause a great and unnecessary amount of annoyance to decent people. Of course, the Attorney General for Ireland can step in and quash his action at any moment he pleases; but it is one thing for the Attorney General for Ireland to make himself responsible for a prosecution in the first instance; and it is altogether a different thing for him to step in afterwards and put an end to a prosecution that has been begun. I believe that if you were to introduce this Amendment you will reduce greatly the number of prosecutions which would otherwise take place, and not only that, but you will reduce the amount of irritation which exists in Ireland. For my part, I cannot see why the Amendment should not be accepted. We, however, who are advocating it, are in an unfortunate position, because, at the present moment, there is no one on the Treasury Bench but the Law Officers, and, therefore, I think this point should be referred to again a little later when the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) and other Members of the Cabinet are here, for it is an Amendment of such importance that it should be considered
  450
  fully by the responsible Members of the Government before it is rejected. The only reason given against the Amendment by the Attorney General for Ireland is that by rejecting the Amendment he will be saved a great deal of trouble. I think at least we should continue to debate this matter until some Member of the Government comes in to overrule the opinion of the Attorney General for Ireland. With regard to the contention of the Attorney General for Ireland that it would be impossible for him to deal with all the prosecutions that will take place under the Act, I venture to say that it would be a positive benefit to the country if we were to raise the remuneration of the Law Officers of the Crown to meet the increased amount of work that would result from the Attorney General for Ireland having to issue his fiat before any prosecution is instituted; because, by the means we have suggested, the country would be spared the cost of many useless prosecutions.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: There have always been two classes of criminal prosecutions; first, that of indictable offences, which are tried before a jury; and, secondly, those offences which are summarily disposed of by the local magistrates. In the first case, the public have always had the protection, that, before any prosecution is instituted or carried on by the Crown, the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland should be obtained. In the case of all indictable offences, which are tried at Quarter Sessions or at the Assizes, before the Crown prosecutes informations are submitted to the Attorney General for Ireland, and he endorses them either for prosecution or no prosecution. In the second class of cases, which are tried summarily, the public have no such protection. Then comes in this Act which makes indictable a number of offences which were not so before; and the Government say that they ought not to be tried by jury, but transferred to the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrates. Well and good; if that be so, the question we ask you is this—having transferred the jurisdiction in these cases to the Resident Magistrates, why should you not preserve to the public the protection which they have always had? We say that if you allow these cases to be dealt with summarily,

  451
  you should, at any rate, provide that those who institute the prosecutions should, first and foremost, get the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland. I cannot imagine anything more reasonable than that, and I am amazed at the ground on which it has been refused. The Attorney General for Ireland has admitted our case. He has admitted that in the case of indictable offences for which there are prosecutions the public hitherto have had the protection which I have pointed out—namely, the protection that, before the resources of the Crown are placed in the hands of any private individual to institute a prosecution, the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland has always been necessary, that the informations in the case are submitted to him, and that it is for him to say whether the Crown should institute prosecutions. Is there any reason, especially when you hand over these enormous and important classes of cases to the jurisdiction of Resident Magistrates, why that protection should not be preserved to the public? I respectfully submit that there is no reason. What does the Attorney General for Ireland say? He says that if you do this you will deprive private individuals of all right of initiative. My hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) has met that argument by offering to alter his Amendment so that it shall not apply to the cases of private individuals. But, at any rate, apply it to the cases in which prosecutions are set in motion, not by private individuals, but by police constables and other local officials, who, although they may act with the best motives, are more or less officious, and have the strongest inducements to be officious. I do not think anything more reasonable than that which is asked in this Amendment could be proposed. Surely the Government ought to do something to prevent the misuse of the powers conferred by this section. I have already drawn attention to the fact that there are classes of cases of a non agrarian and non-political character, in which it would be monstrous to set these powers in motion. Granted that the powers of this section are necessary in the case of agrarian or political conspiracies; but these are conspiracies of a totally different character. I know that in the city which I represent, charges of conspiracy have frequently been made in connection with the Cork
  452
  butter trade. Would it not be monstrous if a prosecution of this kind were instituted in a matter of no conceivable political or agrarian tinge? In cases of that kind, it would be in the power of the local Resident Magistrate or police con-stable to take away the trial of any case from the constitutional tribunal, from the petty jury in which jurisdiction has always hitherto been vested, and hand it over to the Resident Magistrates, though not the smallest reason of a valid character could be urged. we do ask that we shall not be absolutely at the mercy of the local tyrants to whom the Government will hand over the administration of this Act; we do ask that we shall have some protection against the action of constables or officious local Resident Magistrates. Let us have some authority in whom we can place some reliance. Goodness knows, the Attorney General for Ireland is not the official exactly whom we would ourselves choose if we had absolute discretion in this matter, and could set up our own authority; but, at any rate, he is the best we can propose in a matter of this kind, and it is a monstrous thing, when we propose that the authority to set the powers contained in this great section in motion should be the Irish Attorney General, the Government should say—"Oh! the Irish Attorney General has too much to do; his great mind is so much occupied by questions of State, he cannot condescend to these petty transactions. He has too much to do to bother himself with the question whether or not a prosecution shall be instituted under this section." That, I say, is a monstrous attitude to take up. We are all aware that there has been a controversy latterly about the salary of the Irish Attorney General, and we know the Irish Executive has been in great conflict with the English Treasury on the subject. I understand they have stopped the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fees in cases of a non-contentious character; the Attorney General for Ireland, therefore, would not be paid for anything of this kind; but it is impossible to suppose he would be affected by such a sordid consideration as that. I regret the attitude the Government have taken up upon this clause—that they should attempt to run the clause through Committee without any Amendment at all, is a most unreasonable posi-

  453
  tion to take up; and if it is persisted in, I am fully persuaded it will not tend to facilitate the passing of the Bill.
  MR. MOLLOY: The Irish Attorney General, in the course of his remarks, stated that there was no necessity for this Amendment, because, in the case of any of these prosecutions, he would always have the power to interfere and put an end to the prosecution if he thought that the prosecution was an unfair one. Now, that assumes on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland that he will have to look into the details of all prosecutions under this Bill; and, if that assumption be a correct one, surely it would be less trouble, and it would be a saving of time, if he were to intervene previous to the institution of the prosecution, instead of in the course of the prosecution. Now, Sir, the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) seems an exceedingly strong one—namely, that the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland has been necessary in these cases up to the present time, and that by this clause you are depriving the public of the protection which they have hitherto had. The main object of this Amendment is not so much that the Attorney General for Ireland shall grant his fiat for all these prosecutions, but in regard to those initiated by the police. The initiation of prosecutions by the police of Ireland has always been a danger to good Government in Ireland. You put a prize before the police in order to induce them to accumulate prosecutions on their own initiative; it is in proportion to their activity in getting up prosecutions that they look to reward. I can give an example which will show both sides of the question. A policeman in my own district admitted, in the course of a conversation with me, that an inducement was held out to him to support these prosecutions. He told me that if he were not active in the course of his duties he would not get the promotion that others who were active in the initiation of prosecutions would get. There are a number of policemen in Ireland who take a different view—who have, more or less, sympathy with the people. One of them actually apologized to me for having to carry out work which was put before him. He felt that the work that he had to do was unfair and unjust work; yet
  454
  that, if he did not work in an active spirit, as the authorities called it, he would be deprived of the position he held. Now, this inducement to the police to initiate prosecutions is, as I have said, one of the dangers of the present time, and it would be a still greater danger under the operation of this Bill. If the Attorney General for Ireland is to interfere with prosecutions during their progress, what difficulty can there be in his looking into a case before a prosecution is started?
  DR. KENNY: I am sure that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had considered this Amendment in all its bearings, he would not have put his foot down in so determined a manner against the Amendment. What is the meaning of this Amendment? It is to step in, as a buffer, between the people of Ireland and that which is admittedly the curse of all administration whatever—namely, the meddlesome official. If the Attorney General for Ireland could only be brought to believe that this Amendment would keep Mm out of a great deal of hot water in the House of Commons, he would accept it. There is no doubt in the world that the spirit which actuates subordinate officials in Ireland is to make themselves as obnoxious to their neighbours as possible. Every time an official interferes under this clause, and makes himself obnoxious, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will hear of it in this House. He himself admits his responsibility for all the prosecutions, and yet he rejects an Amendment which, if accepted, would prevent him considerable annoyance. Now, the Attorney General for Ireland says it would be impossible for him to exorcise such control as this Amendment asks him to, and yet in the same breath he leads the Committee to believe that he is going to exercise an effective control over every prosecution as soon as it is initiated. Why not step in in the beginning and stop the mischief before it has commenced at all. Surely prevention is better than cure. I should like to know on what argument he is going to rely. Is it that he has not time to attend to this matter, or is it that he is going to attend to it? Local officials will be sure to interpret this Act as being an Act placed in their hands to be worked with as much officiousness as

  455
  possible. Most frivolous excuses they will give for bringing charges against people; and, therefore, we want the Attorney General for Ireland to say that these officials shall not on their own motion enter into prosecutions, unless he, or some of his legal assistants, shall have first inquired into the facts and given his fiat. If subordinate officials, like police constables, are allowed to initiate prosecutions under this clause, you will have the very thing which this Act is designed to stop—namely, disorder and crime. Wherever you have popular irritation you will have popular retaliation in some form or other. My hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has very properly withdrawn that portion of the Amendment which would seem to prevent private individuals initiating prosecutions. He does not quarrel with the right of private individuals in this direction; all he wants to do is to take away the right of initiating prosecutions from subordinate officials. I think that the Attorney General for Ireland must upon reflection admit the justice of our case.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I hope the Government will agree to this Amendment, because it is simply to prevent the Irish people being placed at the mercy, not of the Castle Authorities, but of the police of the country. The provisions of this Act will be harsh enough if it is to be enforced by the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant, by the right hon. and learnedGentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and by other high officials in Dublin Castle; but harsh as these provisions will be, the action of the local constabulary under this measure will be at least ten times as objectionable, because what does it mean if this Amendment is rejected? It simply means that the power is handed over to the constabulary in the different districts proclaimed to take proceedings against people for having committed offences named in the Bill. I cannot conceive why the Attorney General for Ireland refuses to look into these cases before proceedings are taken, and I can only judge his refusal to mean that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the police in Ireland to commence all sorts of obnoxious proceedings without any reason whatever. It is a very well known fact that under
  456
  previous Coercion Acts the constabulary have instituted proceedings against the public, and have been the means of getting people imprisoned who had done nothing at all. I remember very well that, under the Coercion Act of 1881, police constables, in a part of Ireland I know very well, went about openly boasting that they would have, sooner or later, certain men put in prison against whom they had some ill-fueling or spite. A number of men wore imprisoned under the Coercion Act of 1881, who were imprisoned simply on the initiation of a police constable in the district who had some ill-feeling against them. So, I say, unless some check, such as is provided by the Amendment now under discussion, be put upon the police in the different localities of Ireland, you will have instituted all sorts of prosecutions against people simply out of pure personal ill-feeling or spite. We know very well that the police are not at all a popular body of men in Ireland. To some extent the police have been Boycotted. The police have been in the habit of attending evictions and carrying out other dirty work, and, therefore, the people regard them with feelings of dislike. The police in return cherish towards the people, to a great extent, feelings of spite and of temper; and, therefore, I say that when they get this power in their hands we shall find them paying off what they consider to be old scores. Now, Sir, I am perfectly certain that the effect of the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) would be to lessen, to a very great extent, the prosecutions which will take place in Ireland in proclaimed districts under this Act. Surely, Sir, whatever the intentions of the Government may be, it cannot be their deliberate intention to have these prosecutions multiplied all over the country. They cannot desire to see the police institute prosecutions without proper reasons and without proper motives, and yet the refusal of the Attorney General for Ireland to give an undertaking that he himself will inquire into prosecutions before they are commenced would lead one to suppose that that is their wish. I cannot conceive a more reasonable request to make to the Government than that where they are determined to proceed by summary jurisdiction against people, they will not take proceedings

  457
  until the Attorney General for Ireland, or, if not the Attorney General for Ireland, until some other high authority in Ireland, shall have satisfied himself that the proceedings are just, and that the person ought to be proceeded against. I consider this is a most important Amendment, and I do think that it is a very bad sign indeed that no Member of the Cabinet thinks it worth his while to attend in his place to listen to the arguments which we bring forward upon matters such as these. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has in a sort of way replied to this Amendment; but he has not given any good or sufficient reason for his refusal to inquire into these cases before they are proceeded with by the local police. We know very well, and even the Attorney General for Ireland himself must admit, that in very many cases the police are very ignorant men, and in a great many other cases are men filled with prejudice and bigotry. All we ask, therefore, is that the people should be protected against wanton proceedings by the police under this section, and I ask Liberal Members above the Gangway, is it an unreasonable thing for Irish Members to ask that if, under this section, summary jurisdiction is to be put in force, it shall not be put in force upon the sole authority of local constables, but that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, or some such authority, shall satisfy himself as to the justice of the proceedings before they are initiated? I think we have a right to get, if not from the Attorney General for Ireland, from the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), or some other Member of the Cabinet, an answer to this demand we are making. I ask the First Lord of the Treasury what possible objection the Government can have to such an Amendment as this, which does not interfere with the just working of the Bill, which cannot at all interfere with the intentions of the Government under the Bill, but which will simply provide that the people shall be protected against wanton proceedings, that the people shall have the satisfaction of knowing that before proceedings are taken under this clause the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has inquired into the matter, and that they are not being proceeded
  458
  against simply and solely upon the authority of the local constable. I can assure the Committee that if there is ground for the feeling in Ireland that this Coercion Bill is to be administered, not merely by the high authorities of Dublin Castle, but by the prejudiced and bigoted policemen of the country, the difficulty of the task which you profess to have before you—namely, to make the country peaceable, will be rendered all the greater. I ask the First Lord of the Treasury to say what objection the Government have to give the undertaking that before proceedings are taken under this clause the Attorney General for Ireland, or some high official of the law in Ireland, shall satisfy himself that the proceedings are just, and so protect the people from the wanton action of the police.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I believe my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland gave a full answer to this Amendment, and it therefore becomes my duty, Mr. Chairman, to claim to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 219: Majority 74.—(Div. List) No. 154.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: I consider that the decision just come to by the Committee practically disposes of the next Amendment. The same remark applies to Amendments No. 7 and No. 8.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Will you allow me to say, Mr. Courtney, that I did not intend to move No. 7; but I may raise the question embodied in the Amendment when Clause 3 is disposed of.
  THE CHAIRMAN: In respect to Amendment No. 8, it appears to be open to the remark that nothing is provided to finish the sentence. I do not see that there is any supplementary Amendment; therefore I can hardly conceive that this can be accepted as a reasonable proposition.
  MR. ANDERSON: Did I understand you, Mr. Courtney, to

  459
  rule out of Order Amendments No. 10 and 11?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; I think they are open to the same remark as the Amendments immediately preceding them.
  MR. ANDERSON: I beg to move, page 2, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under this Act," and insert—
  "A Special Commission Court consisting of three Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland (other than the Lord Chancellor) appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to try offences under this Act in any proclaimed district."
  This Amendment is to omit from Clause 2 the tribunal which the Government propose to decide upon the very important questions which are to be submitted to it under this Bill. It will be observed that Clause 2 says—"may be prosecuted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under this Act." Now, that Court of Summary Jurisdiction is defined by Sub-section 6 of Clause 11, which states that—
  "The Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall within the police district of Dublin metropolis, he a Divisional Justice of that district, and elsewhere by two Resident Magistrates in Petty Sessions, one of whom should be a person of the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant shall he satisfied, and the expression 'Resident Magistrate' moans a magistrate appointed in pursuance of the Act of the Session of the Sixth and Seventh year of the reign of King William the fourth, chap, thirteen, intituled 'An Act to consolidate the laws relating to the Constabulary force in Ireland.'"
  Well, bearing in mind the very important offences—which it is not necessary for me to refer to—that are dealt with in this 2nd clause, offences of great importance, involving, as they do, the power of this Court of Summary Jurisdiction to inflict punishment of six months' hard labour, I think it might be expected that we should have, under this Bill, a Court of similiar importance to Courts in other parts of the United Kingdom which deal with cases of a similar kind. It will be understood that there are Courts in England to deal summarily with offences; but it is known to the Committee that the Sheriffs of England are men of trained experience. They are practically trained lawyers, and many of them are perfectly qualified, from their education and experience—and I want to impress upon the Committee their practical knowledge in dealing with matters of this kind—to deal,
  460
  not only with these summary cases, but with much more important legal matters. In England you have nothing of the kind which is suggested in this clause of the Bill. Well, everybody knows that where you give powers of this kind you have a Court far superior to anything of the kind suggested in this Bill. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to a Return which has been presented to the House of the Irish Resident Magistrates who are to dispose of these cases. I would give the Committee one or two instances of the kind of Court that will have to deal with these important subjects, as appears by this Return. I take the first case. I suppose a Court composed of Mr. S. F. Carew, a magistrate of Tipperary, receiving £675 a-year, whose qualification is that he has served——
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I understand, Sir, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not disputing the Court, or discussing the question whether the Court to try the offences under this measure should or should not be a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. What he is discussing is whether the Court shall consist of two Resident Magistrates or of three Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland. Well, Sir, it seems to me that it would be more in Order to discuss that question when we come to the 6th subsection of Clause 11.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No doubt, the constitution of the clause can be discussed under Sub-section B of Clause 11, which deals with the constitution of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction; but it seems to me perfectly competent for the hon. and learned Member to move to amend this clause, which says that persons guilty of certain offences, which are specified, may be prosecuted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Under this Act, it seems open to him to move to substitute that Court he suggests for the Court of Summary Jurisdiction provided for in the section.
  MR. ANDERSON: I understand from your ruling, Sir, that I am entitled to proceed. I do not know how I can put before the Committee the object of my Amendment unless I show that the Court of Summary Jurisdiction provided under this section is incompetent to try

  461
  these cases. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite will bear with me for a few moments, I will be very brief. For the purpose of illustrating my case, I will take a Court composed of two persons in this Return as an instance of what may happen. Here you have Mr. S. F. Carew, who, as I say, is in receipt of a salary of £675 a-year, and whose previous avocation is stated to be this—"has served in the 8th Hussars, and afterwards in the Militia." Well, I assume he will be put as presiding Judge or senior Judge of these two, the other being Mr. Buckle, whose previous avocation was "resident country gentleman and honorary secretary of the Tipperary Agricultural Society." Now, do let the Committee for one moment, in all seriousness, consider the character of a Court composed of these two gentlemen, which will have to dispose of these serious offences. Why, even with regard to cases which are subject to summary conviction in this country, where the powers are much less than are given here, nothing so absurd as that which you now propose takes place, because upon the ordinary English bench of magistrates, though, no doubt, you have gentlemen who belong to agricultural societies, you have, at the same time, to keep them right with regard to law and criminal practice, a magistrate's clerk. But in the Court you propose you have nothing of the kind. You have a retired officer of Hussars assisted in his judgment upon these important matters by a gentleman whose sole experience, or whose principal experience, has been in connection with some agricultural society. Let me take another case for the purpose of illustration. Lower down in the list we have the name of the hon. W. F. Forbes, and he appears to have served in the Grenadier Guards, and to have been in the Commission of the Peace for eight years. He, of course, is a person of some small training; but I cannot think that his best coadjutor on the bench will be Mr. Preston, who appears to have been an Army tutor in. receipt of £425 a-year. You have a retired officer of the Grenadier Guards and an Army tutor forming a Court which is to deal with these matters. So much for the qualification of these persons mentioned in this Return, who I maintain are wholly unfit to discharge the duty, in spite of the clause
  462
  that I understand the Government are willing to put in the Bill, declaring that one of the magistrates taking part in these proceedings is to have a certain legal qualification. But there is this still more important matter which, to my mind, goes to the whole root of the question—namely, that these magistrates are to deal with what are practically political offences. There is no doubt of that. Questions connected with Boycotting and connected with the agrarian agitation will come within their jurisdiction, and those questions are of a political nature. It will be observed by the Committee that all those magistrates hold their office during pleasure; and it must be borne in mind that one of the most dangerous engines which a Government has for dealing with political offences are magistrates or Judges who hold office during pleasure, because these magistrates and Judges, of course, know perfectly well that it is to their interest to deal with political offences in the direction and in the way that the Crown desires, because, if they do not, the Crown may at once dismiss them. The Members of the Committee may probably know that this very question led to one of the greatest Constitutional struggles that ever took place in this country—namely, that upon the question of the appointment of the Judges. As the Committee knows, the Judges under the Act of Settlement were appointed and retained in office in the manner I have referred to, and the result was that the Crown did not hesitate to use the Judges of the Superior Courts as instruments for political oppression. I will read two or three lines from Hallam on this subject, ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members opposite, I am sure, have not read Hallam for many years, and one passage of his, a very short one, will, I am sure, do them a deal of good—
  "It has been the practice of the Stuarts, especially in the last years of their dynasty, to dismiss Judges, without seeking any other pretence, who showed any disposition to thwart the Government in political prosecutions. The general behaviour of the Bench had covered it with infamy. Though the real security for an honest Court of Justice should be found in its responsibility to Parliament and to public opinion, it is evident that their tenure of office must, in the first place, have ceased to be precarious, and their integrity be rescued from the severe trial of forfeiting the emoluments upon which they existed."
  That is the exact position of these

  463
  magistrates. I desire to point out that it is most dangerous for this Committee to adopt the proceedings which were followed in the reign of William III. in appointing officers at pleasure to undertake these duties. So much for that. Now I wish to say a word as to what I wish to propose to introduce into this Bill. I do not know whether the Government look with any sort of favour upon my Amendment. I cannot help hoping that, inasmuch as they have all cited the Act of 1882, they will look with favour upon this Amendment, because it was the very provision inserted in that Act for the purpose of providing for the trial of offences created by that measure. The tribunal which I propose is a tribunal of three Judges of the Supreme Court in Ireland, who are not ex-Lord Chancellors. Well, we shall have some excuse for the Government—I hope not, but I fear we shall—to the effect that that would be too important a tribunal to try the cases; but I do say this, that when you are dealing with offences of this character, involving, as they do, political questions, one of our first acts ought to be to select a tribunal which, if possible, should possess the confidence of the country. I do not say that there are often to be found tribunals such as I suggest. Perhaps the tribunal is too large, and that two Judges will do. Perhaps some might like to have an English Judge. By all means, if you like to have an English Judge upon the tribunal, have one. I do not think any expense ought to be spared by the Government for the purpose of giving these people who are to be prosecuted for what they do in proclaimed districts a tribunal in which they have confidence. That is my first contention. Now, three Judges—or perhaps two, for two would do, and I should be glad to hear what the Government have to say upon that point—will be able to bring to bear upon the matters submitted to them extensive experience and great legal knowledge, and from the nature of their positions and their independence, will be able to decide the cases submitted to them without fear or favour. We may depend upon their being thoroughly impartial—at any rate, if we cannot depend upon getting such a body as I propose in Ireland, we can send over English Judges or Scotch Judges for the purpose. You have lately had an instance of an
  464
  English Judge going to Ireland and doing admirable justice. I cannot help thinking that that is a precedent that should be followed, and I venture to suggest that my proposal is one that deserves the very serious consideration of the Committee. I bring it forward, not as an idle Amendment, but as a serious one, which goes to the root of the clause; and I ask Her Majesty's Government to give it serious consideration. I trust they will accept it. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, lines 15 and 16, leave out, "a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under this Act," and insert "a Special Commission Court, consisting of three Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland (other than the Lord Chancellor) appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, to try offences under this Act in. any proclaimed district."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I confess that one sentence in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech surprised me very much. There were many things which surprised me in his speech, but that which surprised me most was his tolling us that he brought forward his Amendment seriously. I can hardly believe, in spite of his assurance, that that was the case. His speech consisted entirely of two parts, in one of which he criticized the suggestion of the Government, and in the other of which he proposed his alternative suggestion. Now, with regard to his alternative suggestion, it is sufficient to say that to construct a special tribunal of three Judges, even if they were Irish Judges, to go about from place to place trying these cases would not only be extremely cumbersome and costly, but would absolutely prevent that rapidity of action which is one of the chief points we hope to gain by introducing the provision for summary jurisdiction. So much for the actual substantive suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will now devote a few words to the consideration of his criticism upon our proposal. He has to-night attacked, not for the first time in these debates, the Resident Magistrates to whom are to be entrusted the summary jurisdiction

  465
  under this Bill, and his chief reason appears to be—now the well-worn one—that many of these Resident Magistrates have been soldiers. Now, I have already told the Committee, and I again repeat, that though we are anxious, and have shown our anxiety in the Bill, to take precautions that one of the two Resident Magistrates who have got to decide these summary cases shall be a person of competent legal knowledge, we are not prepared to admit that the best class from which to choose the greater number of these magistrates is that of lawyers. We are not of opinion that you get the pick of the legal profession at the salary which Parliament allows a Resident Magistrate; but we do believe that you will get most competent and efficient men to fill these posts from other classes at the salaries you are prepared to pay, and in that contention we are supported by experience. The hon. and learned Gentleman has brought out stores of ancient learning as to the English judicature——
  MR. ANDERSON: No, no.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman read out some common-places from Hallam; but the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he had appealed more to experience and less to maxim, would have found that Ireland owes a great deal to the Resident Magistrates. They have for many years administered, impartially and effectually, summary jurisdiction, and whoever has been responsible for the government of Ireland will acknowledge that those gentlemen are well worthy of the confidence of this House.
  An hon. MEMBER: Worthy of the confidence of the landlords.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: NOW, the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that, as these magistrates are removable at pleasure, therefore they will be willing slaves of the Executive in dealing with these offences.
  MR. ANDERSON: No; may be.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Now, there are two answers to that argument, and the first is, that political offences are not punishable under this Bill; and the second is, that no example can be produced where even a suspicion, or even the first breath of a suspicion, has existed in the mind of any competent or impartial Judge that the Executive of
  466
  this country has ever for one moment dared to interfere with the action of one single Resident Magistrate acting in his judicial capacity. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Morley), who was himself connected with the Irish Government, to get up in this House and contradict that statement. He did not serve under Lord Spencer; but he will probably join with other Leaders in this House, not the least with Gentlemen who now sit below the Gangway, in saying that Lord Spencer's management of Ireland during his Viceroyalty was, not only a courageous management, but an impartial one. Well, by far the majority of those whom Lord Spencer appointed to be Resident Magistrates were not lawyers, but belonged to the class upon which so much contempt has been poured by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that Lord Spencer would join with me in regard to the character I have given of the Resident Magistrates; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite will also, I believe, join with me in saying that, whatever other charges may be brought against these gentlemen, it cannot be said of them that they have ever shown themselves slaves to the Executive Government when they have been called upon to exercise the duties of Judges. We, taking advantage of experience, and following the example of previous Governments, have entrusted the duty of judges to the Resident Magistrates, and we feel confident that we can do so safely. Under the circumstances, it is impossible for us to accept either the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman or any other Amendment of a similar character, which would have the effect of displacing the Resident Magistrates from the position I have pointed out.
  MR. CHANCE: By the very words of the Statute these Resident Magistrates are under the orders and the control of the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. But the right hon. Gentleman has challenged us to give any example where the Executive has interfered with the conduct of Resident Magistrates in their judicial duties. Well, I can give him such an example. I can give an example of a Resident Magistrate who was dismissed from his appointment for declining,

  467
  first, to discover evidence against prisoners, and then to send them to trial. I can supply the right hon. Gentleman with the name of the gentleman I refer to on his undertaking that he will not use the information against that person
  MR. DILLON: I must confess I was perfectly astounded to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite make the statement he did as to the Resident Magistrates not being under the control of the Executive. Can it be possible that the right hon. Gentleman has so soon forgotten the letter published in the newspapers by that very experienced Resident Magistrate, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who gave a most graphic description of the work at the Castle, and spoke of the telegrams which poured in from magistrates, asking for instructions as to what they were to do? It will be said that in the most of these cases the applications were to know what they were to do in their administrative capacity as servants of the Executive; but there is no doubt in the world that a great deal of the instructions issued to them had regard to what they were to do in their judicial capacity. The difficulty in the matter is that it is preposterous and absurd to say that you can get men to separate in their own minds when they are acting, on the same day, in a judicial and in an executive capacity, the influence which the Government has a right to exercise upon them in the one case, and the independence they are to exercise in the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland threw out a challenge to us to mention individual instances in which the Executive had interfered with the action of a magistrate. If I had had notice of the challenge I could have given dozens and dozens of such instances; but on the spur of the moment I will recall a few-instances which recur to my mind without taking the trouble to refresh my recollection. There is the case of Father Fahy. The magistrate sitting in a judicial capacity, or the Crown Solicitor acting for the Crown in that case, stated either that instructions had come, or instructions were expected to come, from the Castle ordering the magistrate to refuse to put the defendant under rule of bail. What did that amount to? Why, that instructions had come, or were coming, from the Castle ordering the magistrate to commit this gentleman to
  468
  prison, which he accordingly did, Father Fahy being committed to prison for three months. There is another instance which I will give in order to show the confusion which arises in the minds of magistrates—a very natural confusion—between their duty as police officers of the Executive Government and their duty as Judges. A case occurred in which I was partly interested a short time ago in the County of Cavan. It was a case in which two or three men were brought before Captain McTiernan, of Enniskillen, by no means a bad specimen of his class, a reasonable and fair minded man, the sort of magistrate of which we have unfortunately too few in Ireland. Well, the men were sentenced to a month's imprisonment. They appealed to the County Court Judge at Cavan, and when the appeal came up for hearing Captain McTiernan sat on the Bench beside the Judge, Mr. George Walters—a thing which it is customary for such gentlemen to do when they have occasion to attend the County Court. I have the account of this from some one who was sitting in the Court when it occurred, and saw the whole thing. Captain McTiernan was sitting on the Bench beside the Judge; some one said it was not right or decent that he should take his seat on the Bench to hear an appeal from his own judgment, and Captain McTiernan at once said that he thought that remonstrance very fair, and loft the Bench. But what did he do? He went down and sat beside the Crown Prosecutor, and prompted him in the ease against the prisoners. Well, I put it to the Committee whether that is the kind of man—and I have pointed out that he is an admirable specimen of his class, and one of the fairest minded Resident Magistrates we have—I put it to the Committee whether he is a gentleman to which cases under this clause should be brought, and whether he is a gentleman who is likely to discriminate very fairly between the influence the Government exercise upon him in his administrative capacity, and that they seek to bring to bear upon him in his judicial capacity. In view of all the people in Court whose confidence in the law it was so desirable to maintain, this gentleman quitted the Bench, and went down and sat by the Crown Prosecutor, and gave him suggestions and promptings in the conduct of a case which was

  469
  an appeal against his own decision. There cannot be the slightest doubt that magistrates do seek for guidance and advice from the Executive as to their action as magistrates sitting in Court, and that they are led by that guidance and act slavishly upon it. They are guided by the Executive as to the severity of their sentences, and as to their general behaviour as magistrates. I endorse the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that many of the best magistrates in Ireland are not lawyers. I have one man in my mind at the present moment, a man promoted by Lord Spencer to the head of the Metropolitan Police in Ireland. He was in the district of East Mayo when I was there, and a more excellent magistrate, and one in whose knowledge and justice one could more thoroughly rely, does not exist in the United Kingdom. I would not hesitate to trust him, but this gentleman is a rare exception amongst the Irish magistrates, and what I would suggest is this. Of course, there are considerable objections which naturally occur to the sending of Judges of the High Court round the country as Courts of Summary Jurisdiction; but what objection could there be to sending round for this purpose the County Court Judges of Ireland? Why not make these Courts Courts where two County Court Judges could sit? I ask hon. Members is that not a fair offer of compromise? These Irish County Court Judges are gentlemen who are largely paid for their services. They are gentlemen whose time is by no moans fully occupied—that is notorious in Ireland. There are, therefore, a number of them at nearly all times of the year with leisure. They are acquainted with the localities. They enjoy, to a much greater extent, the confidence of the people in their impartiality than do the magistrates, and they are not under the direct control of the Castle. They bear much more than the magistrates the character of Judges, and, as I have said, they are in the habit of visiting the localities and they know the local circumstances. I ask, therefore, what reasonable objection can be taken to constituting the Court of County Court Judges in place of the proposed Court of Resident Magistrates? Such a Court would command more respect, and would certainly have a better knowledge of the
  470
  law than the one proposed. I think that, under all the circumstances, if this detestable clause is to be passed, the best Court we could get in Ireland, taking everything into consideration, would be a Court of two County Court Judges to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant according to the circumstances of the time. Surely that is not an unreasonable request. The powers asked for under this section are of a most extraordinary and extreme character, and it is not an unreasonable request to ask that the men who are to administer the great powers given by this section should be men who, in the minds of the people, are divorced from police duties, and will have some of the characteristics of Judges of the land, and who will not be men liable to be removed, or liable to be promoted, or liable to have promotion refused them, according as they serve the purposes of the Executive. They will not be men, the very best of whom think it right and proper to go down from the Bench when an appeal from their decision is being heard, sit beside the prosecuting counsel, and prompt him in the management of the prosecution. They will not be men whose minds will be confused between the ideas of their duty as executive officers and judicial functionaries, as occurred in the case I have mentioned. These Resident Magistrates are not the class of men who ought to have the powers which will be conferred by this clause, especially when we have men in Ireland ready to our hand—a class of Judges who, at least, know the law and cannot be removed at the will and pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has called me to witness, not, I think, with any particular relevancy, because he himself admitted that I was not responsible for the Government of Ireland under Lord Spencer. The short time I was at the Irish Office there was no summary jurisdiction of this kind in operation. My experience in the matter must, therefore, be thoroughly valueless. So far as my opinion goes as to the expediency of entrusting this summary jurisdiction to Resident Magistrates, the right hon. Gentleman could not have done me the honour to listen to what I have said on two occations on previous stages of this Bill, be-

  471
  cause I then referred to the very passage from Mr. Clifford Lloyd's letters which my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo has drawn attention to. Mr. Clifford Lloyd pointed out that during the administration of the Crimes Act of 1882, there was constant communication between Dublin Castle and the Resident Magistrates, not only upon their executive and police duties, but, to use Mr. Clifford Lloyd's own expression, on matters "relating to the maintenance and execution of the law." I cannot doubt for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will not dream of putting direct pressure upon the Resident Magistrates in the execution of their judicial work. I ventured, in some remarks that I made earlier, to say that I would not so readily trust the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Assistant Secretary (Colonel King-Harman). With his strong prejudices, and his strong views about Irish administration, he would be very likely to misapprehend the limits of his position; but that is not the point. The point is not whether a direct pressure will be put upon the Resident Magistrates by the right hon. Gentleman. What we submitted and urged was that there would be inevitably present in the minds of the Resident Magistrates the complexion which their actions would wear in the minds of their official superiors, who have in their hands their promotion, their removal, and their whole material prospects. On those grounds, therefore, I agree with much, not with every word, but with the spirit of what has been said as to the impropriety of entrusting these powers to the Resident Magistrates. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman was very judicious in enlarging upon that particular aspect of the case. On the particular point now before the Committee, I regret that I cannot agree with my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment. It seems to me that this Amendment is an utterly impracticable one. I cannot see how you are to have three Judges moving up and down Ireland dealing with every case that every constable may think fit for this summary jurisdiction to be exercised upon. I think it would not work, and the remark made by the hon.
  472
  Member for East Mayo showed that he equally with his Friends sees the objections which are to be made to this proposal. The hon. Member for East Mayo suggests, as I understand him, that there should be two County Court Judges to whom you should entrust the exercise of this summary jurisdiction. But this is not the place for discussing that proposal, because there is upon the Paper an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), to the effect that these cases shall be heard before two Resident Magistrates, a County Court Judge, and a Chairman of Quarter Sessions. You will find that Amendment on page 27 of the Paper of Amendments. The suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo can, therefore, be very well discussed when we come to Clause 11. In the meantime, I only wish to say that I, for one, should not be able to support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson), and I am sure he would not be ill-advised if he were to withdraw it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise for the purpose of suggesting to my hon. and learned Friend that he should be satisfied with the discussion which has taken place upon his Amendment. It is an Amendment for which we should be willing to vote; but we see the objections pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and I would, therefore, suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that the question mentioned by him would be more fitly raised on the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman has just alluded. I would suggest that he should withdraw his Amendment just now, and raise it at perhaps a more practical and opportune moment.
  MR. ANDERSON: I certainly desire, after what has fallen from hon. Members on this side of the House, to withdraw this Amendment. In withdrawing it, I would express a hope that, before the question comes on again for discussion, Her Majesty's Government will have carefully considered whether it would not be possible for them to give way upon the point upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said at the outset the Government would not be prepared to accept "any" Amendment. In requesting

  473
  leave to withdraw my proposal, I would urge the Government, in the meantime, to consider the question seriously.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVEE: I now rise for the purpose of moving the rejection of Sub-section 1 of Clause 2 in the following terms:—
  "Any person who shall take part in any criminal conspiracy to compel or induce any person or persons either not to fulfil his or their legal obligations, or not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation; or to interfere with the administration of the law."
  The discussion this evening has been, to some extent, anticipated by the discussion that took place last night on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). At the same time, I think there are many considerations which it was impossible then to bring before the Committee, and I will, therefore, venture to raise the question somewhat more broadly, at the same time avoiding going over the ground my right hon. Friend has so fully and ably explored—namely, the whole question of the Law of Conspiracy. In the statement I shall make on this sub-section, I fully accept the statement made by the English Attorney General—namely, that the section as now drawn is not intended to create any new crime. What it does is this—it proposes to withdraw a large class of the most important cases from the superior tribunals of Ireland—namely, the Judges of the land—and to submit them to the lowest tribunals in Ireland—namely, the Resident Magistrates—a tribunal which, I venture to say, is wholly incompetent, whether from legal knowledge or otherwise, to deal with these important subjects. At present, as the hon. Member for East Mayo said last night, the jury stands between the tenants of Ireland and the Law of Conspiracy which it is proposed to deal with under this section. That is really their protection from the Law of Conspiracy as laid down in the section, and as it would be administered by the tribunal to which it is proposed to refer these questions. Now, it is absolutely certain that if this section passes in its present form, it will be impossible for the tenants to combine together to resist unfair rents. That, I take it, will be abso-
  474
  lutely certain under the clause as it now stands, and that object is undoubtedly the object of the section, for we have been told by Lord Salisbury in "another place" that the object of the Bill is to prevent combinations of tenants, and this is the section of the Bill in which it is proposed to effect that purpose. I have no doubt, for my part, that this is the most important section of the whole Bill; and I have no doubt that if the landlords of Ireland should obtain this section, they would willingly abandon almost all the other sections. As a matter of fact, the section is for enabling the collection of rents by a new process—namely, by the enforcement of the Criminal Law—by a process indicated in the section—before the inferior tribunals of Ireland. I would venture, in the first place, to point out that this is an entirely new provision. It has not been included in any other Coercion Act that I know of since the beginning of the century. I have searched through 86 Acts, and I do not find a single one of them that contains a clause at all analogous to the one now under consideration. It cannot be said that the circumstances are different, and that, therefore, a new kind of remedy is required, for it has been very usual, in past years, whenever periods of great agricultural distress and depression have occurred, or whenever there has been great want arising from bad harvests, or whenever the prices of agricultural produce have fallen, it has been very usual for combinations of tenants to take place with the view of obtaining reductions of rent. And the same combinations have taken place in respect of other legal obligations, such as tithes. I find that in the year 1832–3 there was a general combination against the payment of tithes and of rent, yet in one of the most severe Acts ever passed through this House, the House inserted an Amendment to the effect that no district should be proclaimed under that Act by reason of tenants refusing to pay tithes, showing how unwilling the House of Commons was at that time to allow a Coercion Act to be used for the purpose of enforcing contracts and civil obligations. I find that in 1846–7—when, as all hon. Members must be aware, there was very great distress throughout Ireland, and when there were almost uni-

  475
  versal combinations amongst tenants for the purpose of obtaining reductions of rent, the Coercion Act introduced by Sir Robert Peel—and which was the cause of his fall—contained no clause of this nature for endeavouring to enforce the payment of rent by coercive measures. And the Act of the following year, passed by the Government that succeeded Sir Robert Peel, likewise contained no provision of this kind. But, perhaps, the most interesting instance is that of the Coercion Act of 1881, because hon. Members will perfectly recollect that there were then combinations against rent very similar to those which have occurred recently; and there had been a prosecution instituted against Mr. Parnell and five other Members of Parliament under a Conspiracy Law similar to that it is sought to enforce in the section before the Committee. The jury had refused to find a verdict in that case, and, therefore, the whole question was fully under the cognizance of Parliament at that time. But yet the Act of 1881 contained no provision at all analogous to that we are called on to pass—no provision for the purpose of enforcing the payment of rent. Therefore, I say that all precedent is against a clause of this character. For my part, I think it an extremely dangerous precedent that we should endeavour to enforce the payment of legal obligations or the collection of rent by a penal process such as is now proposed under this sub-section. As to the law as it applies to this section, I will venture to say only a few words. I do not propose to delay the Committee at any length by going once more into the question of the introduction of the word "criminal." For my part, with such, legal knowledge as I am able to bring to bear on the subject, I do not think that the introduction of the word at all affects the question. It does not modify the meaning of the word "conspiracy." But I would venture to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can produce any case of conspiracy now punishable by law which will be excluded if this clause passes with the introduction of the word "criminal?" If he can do that, I will give up the case. But if he cannot produce any such case, he must agree that the word is surplusage. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ire-
  476
  land endeavoured to draw a distinction between conspiracy as applied to contracts of labour, and conspiracy as applied to contracts for the payment of rent; and, if we look solely to the English Law on the subject, I think there is a great deal to be said for that distinction, for I find it laid down by very high authority—by no less an authority than Mr. Wright, who was quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General last night, who is, perhaps, the highest authority in the country on the subject of conspiracy, and who now occupies the position of the Attorney General's devil; and, therefore, I presume, is consulted. [Cries of "Order, order!"] I believed the post is a very well recognized one, and a very important one, and that it generally leads to promotion to the Bench at an early date. I think that the fact that this Gentleman holds that high position is some sanction for the statement that he is an authority on these matters. His book is well recognized as being the highest authority on the subject of conspiracy. I find that in that book on conspiracy, Mr. Wright drew a very great distinction between cases of conspiracy under the labour laws in respect to contracts for labour, and combinations, and other kinds, and especially of tenants in respect of rent. After summing up all the authorities on the subject, Mr. Wright says that on the whole he strongly favours the view that combinations to injure a private person, otherwise than by fraud are not, as a rule, criminal, unless criminal means are used; and, he goes on to say, that in none of the cases are there decisions to be found antagonistic to this proposition. Throughout the whole of this part of his book he practically lays down the conclusion that although before' the Act of 1875 combinations of workmen to break contracts of hiring were criminal, and under the Criminal Law; yet that other combinations such as those which the Committee are now considering are not criminal, and are not conspiracies. That, according to the best opinions I have been able to ascertain, is the state of the case with regard to English Law. But I am bound to say that the Irish Law is very different on the subject; and I must say I am surprised that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should have coached up on English Law without reference at all to Irish

  477
  authorities on the subject. I am surprised that the Irish Attorney General did not answer the appeal made to him last night, and say whether he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Ireland, and with the proposition laid down, that combinations of tenants to break contracts for rent, as held by the Law Courts in Ireland, are not conspiracies within the Criminal Law. Now, the whole matter was gone into at very great length in the very 'well-known case of the Queen against Parnell, to which I have already adverted, and the decision of Judge Fitzgerald, now Lord Fitzgerald, goes far beyond anything that has been held in the English Courts in recent times. It lays down this proposition, which goes to the very fullest extent of the proposition laid down by the Judges in respect of combinations of labour in the cases I have already referred to. The ruling of the Judge, or rather the charge of Judge Fitzgerald, goes the fullest length in saying that any combinations of tenants for the purpose of breaking their contracts and endeavouring to obtain a reduction of rent, are conspiracies according to the law in Ireland; and, therefore, are indictable and punishable as such. The clause under consideration appears to me to have been framed almost identically upon the words used by Judge Fitzgerald in the case I have referred to. In that ruling Mr. Justice Fitzgerald said—
  "If the tenant withholds his rent that is a violation of the right of the landlord to receive it, hut it would not be a criminal act in the tenant though it would be a violation of a right; hut if two or more persons incite him to do that act, then their agreement is by law an offence."
  That appears to me to frankly admit the whole of the proposition I have been contending for—namely, that under the Irish law, if not under the English law—and, I admit, that in theory there is no distinction between the law of the two countries—practically a combination of tenants to obtain a reduction of rent from their landlord, and, in the meantime, not to pay rent is a conspiracy and indictable as such. And, accordingly, by this clause all these cases would be dealt with under the section now proposed, and the tenants would be liable to be summoned before the Resident Magistrates and sentenced to imprisonment for six months with hard labour.
  478
  Now, I would venture to put this case to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. Suppose a number of small tenants in Ireland, say 100, found themselves in great difficulty with regard to their rents in consequence of severe agricultural depression or failure of crops, or great fall in prices. Suppose they are unable to pay their full rents. I will not say they have no property whatever out of which to pay, but I will assume for a moment that they could not pay their full rents without soiling off their stock on the farm, an0d supposing a number of these tenants go to the landlord and ask him for a reduction of rent and he refuses to make a reduction, and suppose four or five of the leading men amongst them summon a meeting of the smaller tenants and ask them to make common cause together, and say to the landlord they will not pay their rents unless some reduction—say of 25 per cent—is made, I want to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, under the ruling of Judge Fitzgerald, such a case as this would not be held to be conspiracy and punishable under the law as it now stands? I ask him whether it would not come within the meaning of this section in spite of the introduction of the word "criminal." It seems to me that under the ruling of Judge Fitzgerald there cannot be a doubt that combinations of tenants of this kind, thoroughly spontaneous combinations, and not combinations forced upon them from outside, which may not have taken place under the Plan of Campaign, but which may have occurred on the motion of the tenants themselves to obtain reductions of rent, are now indictable under the law as laid down by Judge Fitzgerald—indictable as conspiracy, and as such, coming within the section now before the Committee. If it is not so, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland or the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England will state distinctly that such a case will not be included within the section, and how it is that it will not come within the section. It appears to mo that if that be the state of things, and that if it is intended that cases of that kind can be dealt with summarily under the section now proposed, such a proceeding will be most monstrous. In

  479
  my opinion, the only way in which small Irish tenants of this kind can really protect themselves under agricultural pressure, and the conditions which now exist in Ireland, is by combination of that character, and that they are just as much entitled to protect themselves by combination in this way as labourers in England are entitled to protect themselves against unfair dealing on the part of their masters. The Act of 1875 expressly met the case of breaches of contract, and in my opinion, breach of contract as regards labour is on the same footing as a breach of contract to pay rent. The payment of rent is not sanctioned upon any higher basis than contracts for labour in England. Now, Sir, what is proposed under the section which is now before us is not, as I have already said, to alter the law, but to alter the procedure of the law, to take the cases away from the jury and the Judges who are now the protection of the tenants of Ireland, and submit them to this inferior tribunal of magistrates. It is not only in Ireland that juries are a protection to people in this position, but it is the same in England. If the law, as laid down by Lord Fitzgerald, be sound, the "Welsh farmers who are protesting against the full payment of tithes are just as much guilty of a conspiracy—of a combination, which is an illegal conspiracy under the Conspiracy Law—as tenants in Ireland, and the only thing that saves them from being prosecuted is the fact that no jury in England or Wales would by any possibility convict. I would ask, would any human being suggest that a case of this kind should be dealt with by an ordinary magistrate—would anyone justify the withdrawal of cases of this importance from the tribunals of the country and submitting them to the ordinary tribunals of magistrates? That is what you are proposing to do in Ireland—to draw these complex cases from the Judges of the land and to submit them to the ordinary and most inferior magisterial tribunals in Ireland—to men who, in my opinion, are totally incompetent to deal with the really difficult and dangerous questions that would come before them. There is one other point I wish to bring under the attention of the Committee, and that is the question of the evidence that would come before these magistrates in these cases.
  480
  These cases of criminal conspiracy involve the most difficult description of evidence that can well he conceived. Lord Fitzgerald, in the charge in the Parnell case, pointed out the extremely vague manner in which the charge might be substantiated; he showed that it was not necessary that you should bring before the Judge evidence to show that the persons charged with conspiracy were actually concerned, man to man, for the purpose of making it a conspiracy; but he said you might infer there was a conspiracy, though the parties had never seen or communicated with one another. I advert to that in order to show how extremely dangerous and loose this law is, and to put the jurisdiction of these cases into the hands of men such as the Resident Magistrates in Ireland, appears to me to be, not only dangerous, but wholly unjustifiable. I venture to say, therefore, that this clause which is now before the Committee is one that ought not to be allowed to pass. By rejecting this clause the Committee would not in any way be altering the law of the land. Under the law as it stands, these cases would go before the Superior Courts; but under this clause it would be transferred to Resident Magistrates. Now, I want to ask the Government why they cannot be satisfied with allowing these cases to remain with the Superior Courts with the protection they have in other parts of the Bill as to the change of juries and the change of venue? Surely it is wiser that cases of this difficulty should be dealt with by the Superior Courts. It seems to me to be fraught with the utmost danger to commit such cases to the tribunal of Resident Magistrates. There is only one other point I would note, and that is that when the Indian Code was under consideration, it was decided by the Commissioners who framed it that nothing should be inserted with regard to conspiracies of this kind, and the Indian Code at this moment does not make it a penal matter that there should be a combination of tenants not to pay their rents. I am informed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that, not long ago, a strike occurred in Bengal, and the question then arose whether the Government should not pass a law to penalize combinations of this kind, to impose penalties against the persons

  481
  offending, and after great consideration the Government came to the conclusion that it would not be right to enforce contracts of the kind by resorting to penal law, and nothing was done in the matter; the two parties were left to fight it out, and I am told that they were able to settle the matter amicably. And, further, when the Criminal Law of this country was under consideration in 1878, I find there was no provision in the Code then proposed to Parliament similar to the clause now before us; combinations and conspiracies were not dealt with by that Code at all. The framers of that Code came to the conclusion that it was not wise or right to enforce civil contracts by penal laws of this kind. The fact is that this branch of the law—Judge-made law—has never come under the review of Parliament at all. When it has come before Parliament, as in the case of the Labour Laws, it has been condemned. I have now only to conclude by saying that, in my opinion, any attempt to enforce civil contract by penal law, as in the Law of Conspiracy, and which is proposed to be enforced by the clause before us, is unwise and unjust in the highest degree, and I believe that the full right of combination is equally as important to the small tenants of Ireland as to any other class of people in this country.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, to leave out sub-section (1).—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'any person who shall' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The right hon. Gentleman, in commencing his observations, said this question had been substantially discussed very fully last night, and he went on to say that he would, as far as possible, endeavour to avoid, reiterating the arguments used on that occasion; but he did not carry out that intention. I have not heard any new argument or any new statement in the whole of his speech, although I followed as closely as I could all his arguments. I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman in all he has said, and I would not have intervened in the debate but for the circumstance that he appealed to me and referred to another appeal made to
  482
  me yesterday evening. I may at once explain that my view agrees with that of the Attorney General for England; we discussed the matter together, and my view of the law agreed with his. If I was asked for any further statement of what the Law of Conspiracy is, I would quote a passage from the speech delivered by my hon. and learned Friend last night. In my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension if he thinks there is any difference between the law of Ireland and that of England on this point. I can assure him, from my knowledge of the matter, that the law is the same both in Ireland and England. It may be possible, in the course of along Charge delivered by Lord Eitzgerald in the case of Parnell, to quote a sentence here and there which might support some other proposition; but the real point in the charge was that the circumstances proved in the case supported the indictment, and that will be plainly seen if you look at the nature of the case. It was the case of a criminal conspiracy, and if the right hon. Gentleman looks into the evidence he will see the conspiracy was, by a combination of persons by fraud and illegal means, a condition of things which we wish to touch by this clause. As I have stated, I entirely concur in what the hon. and learned Attorney General has said, and, so far as I am aware, there is no difference between the law in England and Ireland upon this point. We wish for a speedy remedy when the combination is criminal; and, therefore, the Government ask the Committee to pass this clause. One argument that the right hon. Gentleman brought forward was that this particular clause was a novel one. It is not a novelty in law, but we introduce a new procedure, because we believe the circumstances of the time require that there should be a new procedure, which is a very different thing. As we have had such a long discussion upon this question, not only last night, but on previous occasions, the Committee will excuse me from saying more than to reiterate again that I entirely agree with what has been said from this Bench, and that, so far as we are concerned, we consider that the matter has been fully discussed.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I do not intend to follow the Attorney General for Ireland through

  483
  this matter, but I wish to approach, for a moment or so, the consideration of what is really proposed by this clause—namely, for the first time legislating for the people of Ireland in regard to combinations. Now, Sir, my contention is this—that this is an extremely dangerous power to leave in the hands of magistrates. It is a power which has hitherto been reserved by the law of this country, and by the law of Ireland, for the cognizance of the Superior Courts. What is conspiracy? I must confess, in the first place, I am entirely at a loss to understand what the meaning of the words are "any criminal conspiracy;" and I respectfully invite the Attorney General for England to define, as I think it is his duty to do, what the meaning of those words "criminal conspiracy" may be—that is to say, what is the meaning for the purpose of giving them effect in this clause? I understand the Law of Conspiracy to be that it is the endeavour to compass any illegal object by what may be perfectly legal means, or to compass some legal object by illegal means; and what those illegal means may be, and what the object may be, has hitherto been, and still is by the law of this country, a matter entirely for the arbitrament of the learned Judge before whom it is taken. [Cries of "Divide!"] I really think this is a matter of too much importance to be dismissed in such a cavalier manner. I am not trespassing upon the Committee unduly; and, as a matter of courtesy, I think I may ask the Committee to listen to what I have to say. I wish to point out, as briefly as I can, that this clause really proposes to enact something that is entirely foreign to the law of England. It proposes that—
  "Any person who shall take part in any criminal"—
  combination, because "criminal conspiracy" is meaningless—
  "conspiracy to compel or induce any person or persons either not to fulfil his or their legal obligations, or not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land."
  Now, I say it would be absolutely impossible—and I challenge the Attorney General for England on this point—to invent any indictment in which it would be possible for any verdict of guilty to be found whereby a person was charged for the purpose of combination with another for the purpose of letting land,
  484
  unless, indeed, it could be shown—[Cries of "Divide!"] I do not wish to speak for the purpose of throwing the discussion over to-day, although, under any circumstances, it would be so, as it is too important a matter to be disposed of now, but what I wish to point out is that hitherto the whole force of the law of the country, as it has been interpreted by the Judges, has been to limit the Law of Conspiracy, and there is no case throughout the whole of the recorded decisions in our Law Courts where any persons have been found guilty of such a conspiracy as that which is proposed under this section. Very much was said upon this subject in the debate which took place on the Trades Union Act of 1875, and in 1875 the late Mr. Forster, in supporting that Act, pointed out how extremely undesirable it was to have any legislation by which a person could be punished for combining for the protection of his own trade interests, and pointed out, with regard to combinations, that where it was in order to obtain an increase of their wages they were perfectly legitimate combinations to enter into, and that it would be highly improper for the Legislature to interfere. I wish to put it precisely on the same grounds whether this is not in an identical position, that it would be equally within their rights, in the view of Mr. Forster, that persons should combine for the purpose of reducing their rents? There was a case reported many years ago where two men were prosecuted for a conspiracy in favour of exclusive dealing. In that case the men were tried and convicted. That is a subject with which this clause deals. In a later case Lord Ellenborough pointed out that that case could not, as it ought not, have been decided upon that ground, but it was decided entirely upon the ground of the action against the trade, and, therefore, against combinations. [Cries of "Divide!"] I will stop before the quarter to 6 o'clock is reached, if that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious about. This clause constitutes not merely a criminal offence which has hitherto been known to the law, but it provides a particular measure—a particular means—by which this criminal offence should be dealt with; it provides that it should be dealt with by two magistrates, and I submit that

  485
  is a tribunal absolutely unfitted for dealing with the delicate question of deciding whether or no some proceeding—it may be innocent or otherwise—is, in the eyes of these particular magistrates, a conspiracy. That should be left to the Constitutional authority of this country, and I venture to say it is inexpedient and unconstitutional to provide such a course of procedure.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Last night I pointed out that the discussion of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was rather anticipating the discussion which would come on under this particular clause, and could only be permitted on the understanding that it would have some effect on the discussion upon this clause. Having regard to this fact, and the circumstance that the characteristics of the combinations to be dealt with will be discussed upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), I think it right to put the Question. The Question is, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 143: Majority 87.

  AYES.

  Addison, J. E. W.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Allsopp, hon. G.

  Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

  Allsopp, hon. P.

  Boord, T. W.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Borthwick, Sir A.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Atkinson, H. J.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Baden-Powell, G. S.

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

  Baggallay, E.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Brooks, Sir W. C.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Burghley, Lord

  Banes, Major G. E.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Barclay, J. W.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Baring, Viscount

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

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

  Bass, H.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Compton, F.

  Beckett, E. W.

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Bective, Earl of

  Corbett, J.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Bentinck, W. G. C.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Cross, H. S.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Biddulph, M.

  Curzon, hon. G. N.

  Bigwood, J.

  Davenport, H. T.

  486

  De Cobain, E. S. W.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

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

  Hill, A. S.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Hoare, S.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

  Dixon, G.

  Dorington. Sir J. E.

  Holmes, rt. hon. H.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Houldsworth, W. H.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Howard, J.

  Howard, J. M.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Hubbard, E.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Hunter, Sir G.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Ellis, Sir J. W.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Elton, C. I.

  Johnston, W.

  Evelyn, W. J.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Ewart, W.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

  Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R. J.

  Ker, R. W. B.

  Kerans, F. H.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Kimber, H.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  King, H. S.

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

  Finch, G. H.

  Finlay, R. B.

  Knowles, L.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Lafone, A.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Lambert, C.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.

  Laurie, Colonel R. P.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.

  Lea, T.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Legh, T. W.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Leighton, S.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Lewis, Sir C. E.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Fulton, J. F.

  Long, W. H.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

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

  Gedge, S.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Maclean, F. W.

  Gibson, J. G.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  Goldsmid, Sir J.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Goldsworthy, Major- General W. T.

  Malcolm, Col. J. W.

  Mallock, R.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  March, Earl of

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Marriott, right hon.

  Gray, C. W.

  W. T.

  Green, Sir E.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

  Grenall, Sir G.

  Greene, E.

  Matthews, rt. hon. H.

  Grove, Sir T. F.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Milvain, T.

  Hall, A. W.

  More, R. J.

  Hall, C.

  Morrison, W.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Mount, W. G.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Newark, Viscount

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Norris, E. S.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Norton, R.

  Heaton, J. H.

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  Heneage, right hon. E.

  Paget, Sir R. H.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Pearce, W.

  487

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Stewart, M. J.

  Plunkett, hon. J. W.

  Sykes, C.

  Powell, F. S.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Rankin, J.

  Thorburn, W.

  Richardson, T.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Townsend, F.

  Ritchie, rt. hon. G. T.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Verdin, R.

  Ross, A. H.

  Watkin, Sir E. W.

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  Watson, J.

  Salt, T.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

  Webster, R. G.

  West, Colonel W. C.

  Saunderson, Col. E. J.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Sclater-Booth, right hon. G.

  White, J. B.

  Whitley, E.

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

  Wood, N.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Wright, H. S.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  Wroughton, P.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Yerburgh, R. A.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Young, C. E. B.

  Sinclair, W. P.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  TELLERS.

  Smith, A.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Glam.)

  Flynn, J. C.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Fox, Dr. J. P.

  Anderson, C. H.

  Fuller, G. P.

  Asher, A.

  Gilhooly, J

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gill, H. J.

  Austin, J.

  Gill, T. P.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Gray, E. D.

  Barran, J.

  Gully, W. C.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Harrington, E.

  Blake, J. A.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Blake, T.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Blane, A.

  Healy, M.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Healy, T. M.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Holden, I.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Hooper, J.

  Byrne, G. M.

  Howell, G.

  Cameron, C.

  Jacoby, J. A.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  James, hon. W. H.

  Campbell, H.

  James, C. H.

  Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

  Jordan, J.

  Kennedy, E. J.

  Carew, J. L.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Chance, P. A.

  Kenny, J. E.

  Channing, F. A.

  Kenny, M. J.

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

  Kilcoursie, right hon. Viscount

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Lacaita, C. C.

  Cohen, A.

  Lalor, R.

  Connolly, L.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Conway, M.

  Leahy, J.

  Gossham, H.

  Lyell, L.

  Crawford, W.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Crilly, D.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Crossley, E.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Davies, W.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Dillon, J.

  M'Donald, P.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  M'Donald, Dr. R.

  Dodds, J.

  M'Ewan, W.

  Ellis, T. E.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Esslemont, P.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Finucane, J.

  Maitland, W. F.

  488

  Marum, E. M.

  Robertson, E.

  Mason, S.

  Roe, T.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Russell, E. R.

  Morgan, O. V.

  Sexton, T.

  Morley, rt. hon. J.

  Shaw, T.

  Murphy, W. M.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Sheehy, D.

  Nolan, J.

  Sheil, E.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Smith, S.

  O'Brien, P.

  Stack, J.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Stansfeld, rt. Hon. J.

  O'Connor, A.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

  Stuart, J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Sullivan, D.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  Tanner, C. K.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Tuite, J.

  O'Hea, P.

  Vivian, Sir H. H.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Wallace, R.

  Paulton, J. M.

  Wayman, T.

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Whitbread, S.

  Pickard, B.

  Will, J. S.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Williamson, J.

  Play fair, right hon. Sir L.

  Williamson, S.

  Wilson, I.

  Plowden, Sir W. C.

  Winterbotham, A. B.

  Potter, T. B.

  Woodall, W.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Woodhead, J.

  Power, P. J.

  Wright, C.

  Priestley, B.

  Pyne, J. D.

  TELLERS.

  Rendel, S.

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

  Roberts, J.

  Morley, A.

  Roberts, J. B.

  THE CHAIRMAN: Since the last Division a quarter to 6 o'clock has been reached; and the Question is that the words "any person who shall" stand part of the clause. The construction of the Standing Orders is not without difficulty; but, on the best consideration I can give them, I am of opinion the Question must now be put.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, (seated, and with his hat on) said: On a point of Order I wish to draw your attention to the words of the Standing Order, No. 4—
  "At a quarter before Six o'clock on Wednesday the debate on any Business then under discussion shall stand adjourned to the next day on which the House shall sit; after which no Opposed Business shall be proceeded with."
  Now, I would respectfully call your attention to the fact that the Division which you are now about to put is a Division put in spite of the protest of 143 Members of the House; and, therefore, Mr. Courtney, I respectfully submit that comes under the head of Opposed Business.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no debate under discussion; the debate is closed, and this is part of the Business that must be completed.
  COLONEL NOLAN(seated, and with his hat on): Mr. Courtney—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot speak unless he has something to add.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I have something to add. My contention is that no opposed Bills should be taken after a quarter to 6 o'clock, and that this House cannot suspend the Standing Orders unless we are unanimous.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not adding anything to the matter.
  MR. M. J. KENNY(seated, and with his hat on): Mr. Courtney, on a point of Order I wish to ask if this Division lasts over 6 o'clock, and the House stands adjourned by the Standing Order at 6 o'clock, how will it be competent for Mr. Speaker to take the Chair and adjourn the House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: We have not reached that point.
  The Committee divided.
  The Tellers having come to the Table, to report the numbers to the Chairman—
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (seated, with his hat on as before): Mr. Courtney, are you now entitled to take the numbers, in view of the Standing Orders No. 1 and No. 2 of the House? The first is—
  "That the House do meet every Wednesday at 12 o'clock at noon for Private Business, Petitions, Orders of the Day, and Notices of Motion, and do continue to sit until 6 o'clock, unless previously adjourned."
  The second one is—
  "That when such Business has been disposed of, or at 6 o'clock precisely, notwithstanding there may be Business under discussion, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question."
  Now, Mr. Courtney, I call attention to the fact that it is seven minutes after 6 o'clock, and accordingly, Sir, it is a breach of the Standing Orders of the House that any Business should be taken now.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am informed that upon many previous occasions Divisions have begun before a quarter to 6 o'clock, and have not been reported until after 6 o'clock.
  The Tellers then reported the numbers:—Ayes 223; Noes 143: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 156.)
  Committee report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee do sit again Tomorrow."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of Order, and ask if it is
  490
  competent for the right hon. Gentleman to fix the Committee on this Bill at seven minutes past 6 o'clock, in face of the Standing Order that Business should finish at 6 o'clock? I may say, Mr. Speaker, a point has been raised which I submit is not the same. I raised the point when the Chairman of Committees was in the Chair, that it was not competent to take the Division; but the hon. Gentleman ruled there were several precedents in favour of the result of the Division, which began before a quarter to 6 o'clock, being taken after 6 o'clock. I submit we are now dealing with an entirely different matter, which is not the result of a Division, but the fixing of a Committee of a Bill, and with great respect I state that it would be an utter violation, and without precedent, of the Standing Orders.
  MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say the Business of the House has been protracted beyond 6 o'clock in consequence of proceedings before a quarter to 6 o'clock, and the proceedings afterwards have been consequential upon that action. My presence here, after 6 o'clock, is in consequence of that protracted Sitting. At the termination of the day's proceedings it is quite competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move that the Committee sit to-morrow.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If it would be competent for the House to make an Order now, after 6 o'clock, it would on a point of Order be competent for us to debate it.
  MR. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises upon the Question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman; therefore I leave the Chair.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  And it being after Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.