Sitting of 23 May 1887

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—William Alexander M'Arthur, esquire, for the County of Cornwall, Mid or St. Austell Division.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Lieutenancy Clerks Allowances * [274.]
Committee—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) [217] [Twelfth Night]—R. P
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Tramways (No. 2) * [271]; Local i Government (Ireland) (Ballyshannon, &c.) * [272].
Third Reading—Commons Regulation (Ewer)* [237], and passed.

MOTION'S.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Baron Henry De Worms, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Dudley, Netherton, Old Hill, and Cradley Tramways; Newport Pagnell and District Tramways; Norwich Tramways; Wolverton and Stony Stratford Tramways (Deanshanger Extension); and Worcester Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Baron Henry De Worms.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 271.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BALLYSHANNON, &c.) BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel King-Harman, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Waterworks in Ballyshannon, Greencastle, and Kinlough, ordered to be brought in by Colonel King-Harman.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 272.]

  LIEUTENANCY CLERKS ALLOWANCES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Brodrick, Bill for amending the Allowances payable to Clerks of General Meetings of Lieutenancy, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brodrick, Mr. Secretary Stanhope, and Mr. Northcote.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 274.]

QUESTIONS.

  CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES—THE ANGLO-AMERICAN FISHERIES DISPUTES.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has yet received a reply from the American Government to the Marquess of Salisbury's Despatch of the 24th March, and which contained proposals for a settlement of the Anglo-American Fisheries disputes; if so, will he be good enough to favour the House with a synopsis of the answer; and, what measures (pending existing negotiations) Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with that of Canada, intend adopting for the purpose of preventing further friction and ill feeling between the two Governments, by the seizure of American ships, during the approaching fishery season?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No reply has yet been received to the Marquess of Salisbury's

  855
  Despatch of the 24th of March. The measures to be taken during the ensuing fishing season for the protection of the inshores will be similar to those taken last year, which were warranted under the terms of existing Treaty arrangements between Great Britain and the United States. Her Majesty's Government entertain no doubt that the Canadian Government will use all possible moderation compatible with the protection of the public interests; and they also hope that vessels from the United States will give no occasion for interference with them.

  METROPOLIS—THE ROYAL PARKS—CONSTITUTION HILL.
  MR. LAWSONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Why the public are debarred from the use and enjoyment of Constitution Hill, which is maintained and inspected at the public cost, out of moneys appropriated to the Royal Parks; who are the persons privileged to ride and drive along it; and, whether he will endeavour to open it for the convenience of the Metropolis?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The use of Constitution Hill by the public is subject, as in the case of all the other roads in the Royal Parks, to Rules laid down in pursuance of the Parks Regulation Act, 1872. At present, all foot passengers and persons riding on horseback can pass up Constitution Hill; but special permission is required by persons using carriages. I am not aware that it is intended to make any change in these arrangements.
  MR. LAWSONinquired by whom permission was given?
  MR. PLUNKET: Through the Home Office.

  ADMIRALTY-PERMANENT FINANCIAL CONTROL.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Government have it in contemplation to establish at the Admiralty a permanent financial Control, similar to that which it is officially stated will be introduced at the War Office?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The
  856
  hon. Baronet has put this Question under a misapprehension. The Secretary of State for War stated the other day that, inasmuch as a certain portion of the expenditure of the Ordnance Department was exempted from the financial control to which all other expenditure at the War Office was subject, he proposed hereafter to establish a stricter control over this branch of outlay. No branch of expenditure at the Admiralty is in this condition, all being equally subject to the same financial control and check.

  ARMY (INDIA)—INDIAN ARTILLERY—THE 9-POUNDER MUZZLE-LOADING GUN.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that, notwithstanding the Government of India admit the inferiority of the present 9-pounder muzzle-loading gun, with which the Indian Artillery is equipped, to the Ordnance it would have to meet in action, and have recommended the now I2-pounder breech-loading gun should be substituted for it, only 10 batteries of 60 guns out of the entire 417 are to be provided for before the 1st April, 1888; what time it will take to provide the armament for the whole of the batteries in India; and, what is the reason why the three batteries which were to have been supplied by the 31st March last have not yet been sent out to India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The time within which the new armament for the whole of the batteries in India will be provided depends upon financial and other considerations. The three batteries will be shortly despatched. The reason why they were not sent earlier is that the War Department could not got them ready in the time that has elapsed since the receipt of the demand.

  POOR LAW (METROPOLIS)—STRAND BOARD OF GUARDIANS—CASE OF ELIZABETH SMITH.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the case referred

  857
  to in the following extract from The Globe of the 12th instant (which has been verified as accurate by the Superintendent of the Strand Union Schools at Edmonton); and whether he will consider of the advisability of giving the Guardians some limited discretionary power in dealing with such a case, which is by no means an isolated one, or take other steps to protect children in similar cases:—
  "Yesterday, at the Strand Board of Guardians, a woman named Elizabeth Smith, who was wretchedly attired, applied for the custody of her two children, aged respectively 12 and 14, who were in the schools at Edmonton The Clerk read a Report, which had been made by one of the officers of the Union, to the effect that he had visited Mrs. Smith's home, and found she had only one room, in a wretched condition, almost devoid of furniture, and with a very little bedding, and in this room slept with the mother a daughter aged 19, and a son aged 16 years. The Chairman strongly advised the applicant not to take her two boys from the schools to her miserable home. One of them was in the band, and would become a good musician, while the other was making good progress with his trade as a shoemaker, and both were very happy. Mr. Bennett said it would be a shame to give these children up to Mrs. Smith, who spent her time going from public house to public house.—The Relieving Officer said that Mrs. Smith's husband poisoned himself some time ago owing to the conduct of his wife.—The Chairman: I implore and entreat of you, Mrs. Smith, not to take these children away.—Mrs. Smith: Can't I have my children if I want them?—The Chairman: I must tell you if you insist upon it you can have them.—Mrs. Smith: I do insist upon it, and I will have them.—The Chairman; Very well, if you say so you must have them, and we cannot help it?"
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): My attention has been drawn to the case referred to in the Question. Legislation would be necessary to empower a Board of Guardians to retain, against the will of the parent, the custody of his child, although in consequence of destitution the child had been chargeable to the rates. No doubt, there are some instances in which the interests of children are prejudiced by their parents claiming them from the Guardians; but I should not be prepared to propose legislation which would enable a Board of Guardians to withhold a child from its parent when claimed by him. If, after a child has been taken charge of by its parent, there are any circumstances which would bring the case under the provisions of the Industrial Schools Acts, proceedings
  858
  might be taken for sending the child to an industrial school.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—MONAGHAN GUARDIANS.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any objection to state from whom he received the information relating to threatened evictions in Monaghan that the Guardians reported that there was ample accommodation for tenants in the workhouse independent of the portion occupied by the Militia; if this Report was furnished by the authority of the Board, when was the meeting held, and if supplied by individual Guardians, whether he will give their names, and state whether they were elected or ex-officio Guardians; whether it is true that the Master of the workhouse reported to the last meeting of the Board that the Militia had smashed the windows of one wing of the building, and that fever had broken out in one of the wings occupied by the Militia; and whether considering that a considerable time will be required to repair the damage done, and for disinfecting the building, before evicted tenants could be with safety received, he will refuse to place Forces of the Crown at the service of Miss Rose, Mr. Dacre Hamilton, and Colonel Forster, for the purpose of evicting those 60 families, until the Militia are disbanded, and the workhouse put in order to receive them?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the information was received from the Clerk of the Union. The Master reported that a number of panes of glass had been broken in the windows of the wing occupied by the Militia. There had been no outbreak of fever among the Militia during the present training. The Government did not see any reason to interfere with the pending evictions, should it be unhappily necessary to carry them out.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF JOSEPH COMERFORD—BELFAST POLICE COURT.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the ease of Joseph

  859
  Comerford, who was sentenced by the magistrates at Belfast Police Court, on 31st May, 1886, to upwards of 21 months' imprisonment with hard labour for assaults committed on the one occasion; whether the extreme penalty which, according to the law in England, can be inflicted for such an offence is six months' imprisonment; whether Comerford has now been in gaol for double that period; and whether he will, under the circumstances, bring this case under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the facts appeared to be substantially stated in the Question. The assaults were, however, of a most serious character. They were five in number, and spread over two different periods of one day, the prisoner on the first occasion having effected his escape, on which occasion he seized the baton of a policeman, and with that weapon attacked the police, striking three of them on the head, and wounding one of them so seriously that he was unfit for duty. The prisoner was of previous bad character, there being 20 previous convictions recorded against him. The Lords Justices had had this case fully under review, and had decided that the law must take its course.

  WAR OFFICE—THE FIRST ARMY CORPS—THE HORSES OF THE CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether 20 horses have been taken from all Cavalry Regiments in the First Army Corps in order to make up the number required for the Ammunition Column; and, if so, how the deficiency will be made up?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): No Cavalry regiment has had its horses reduced in order to provide horses for the Ammunition Column. It is true that six Cavalry regiments which, in 1886-7, had 400 horses, have, in the present Estimates, only 380. The Cavalry, however, does not lose these 120 horses, as 80 of them have been added to the establishment of a seventh regiment, and 40 to that of the Cavalry Depot, Canterbury.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—FRANCIS COOK, DRUMSNA.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any steps will be taken by the police to prosecute Francis Cook for riotous conduct at Drumsna on the 2nd of March, and for presenting a revolver at Mr. Veich Simpson and a number of persons drawn together by Francis Cook's riotous conduct; Whether this Francis Cook is the same man who some time ago was arrested for shooting a child in Mohill; and, whether an inquiry will be ordered into the conduct of the police in not prosecuting Cook for disturbing the public peace?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, at the trial of the case the witnesses produced by Mr. Veich Simpson charged Cook neither with presenting a revolver at him or at anybody else. The police stated that no disturbance took place on the occasion referred to, and the sergeant at Drumsna said he did everything to facilitate the prosecution. It was the same Francis Cook who, five years ago, was arrested for shooting at a child in Mohill. He was not put on his trial at the ensuing Assizes, as the Grand Jury ignored the Bill sent up against him. The Irish Government did not consider it necessary to interfere further in the matter, as they considered that the constabulary had done their duty in the matter.
  MR. O'KELLYasked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was aware that the Judge before whom this case was brought stated that the man had produced a revolver, but he was not sure that he pointed it at this particular man; but he was sure that he had produced it and presented it at the crowd.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had answered the Question put before him—whether he was charged with presenting a revolver at Mr. Veich Simpson?

  THE MARRIAGE LAWS—THE RECTOR OF MUCH WOOLTON, LIVERPOOL.
  MR. E. R. RUSSELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that there is being circulated

  861
  by the authority of the Rector of Much Woolton, Liverpool, the following statement:—
  "Marriages. All persons residing in the parish of Much Woolton must be married at the parish church, unless one of the parties to he married has been residing for 15 days prior to the granting of the licence or the publication of the banns in the parish or district belonging to the church in which they wish to be married. When one (or both) of the parties to be married is (or are) residing in this parish, unless the marriage be by licence, the banns must be published on three successive Sundays in this church; and when the parties reside in different parishes the banns must be published in both churches. Note.—persons infringing the Marriage Laws are liable to heavy penalties; "
  whether there are in the parish Nonconformist places of worship, as well as a Registrar's Office, at which marriages may be legally performed; and whether steps will be taken to prevent the continued circulation of the above quoted statement?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has received a letter from the Rector of the parish, who has explained to him that the statement circulated by him, and quoted in the Question, was intended to give information as to the marriage law to members of the Church of England only. The Circular is only issued to members of the Church of England, and by the parocial visitors of the church. In order, however, to prevent any misunderstanding in the future, the Rector informs the Secretary of State that he will in re-printing the Circular so modify its opening words as to make it perfectly clear to everybody what is meant, and to what class of persons the statement applies. There are in the parish Nonconformist places of worship, as well as a Registrar's Office.

  BRITISH GUIANA—ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS.
  MR. CROSSLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Court of Policy of British Guiana has passed an Ordinance for the establishment of a town at Bartika; whether it provides that one-third of the sums received for the lands formerly held at the pleasure of the Crown by the Bishop of Guiana shall be paid to the Bishop and his suc-
  862
  cessors absolutely, for ecclesiastical purposes; whether the effect of this will be to convert a grant to the Church Missionary Society, held at the pleasure of the Crown, into a permanent endowment of the Bishopric; whether the Ordinance has been transmitted for the approval of the Crown; whether the Governor has also forwarded a Petition from the Congregational Union of British Guiana opposing such Ordinance; and whether he will advise a modification of the Ordinance, to meet the objection of the unendowed Religious Bodies in the Colony?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I have received no official information from the Governor on the subject; but it appears from the Colonial newspapers that such an Ordinance has been passed by the Colonial Legislature, and that it contains practically the provision mentioned in the second part of the Question. The Ordinance has not yet been transmitted for the approval of the Crown. I am not prepared, therefore, to express an opinion as to the effect of that provision, or to consider whether I will advise a modification of the Ordinance until I have received the Ordinance itself, and the Report from the Governor and Attorney General upon it. The Petition referred to in the fifth part of the Question has not been forwarded to me.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—"KEVIL v. KING-HARMAN."
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has his attention been called to the decision of the Queen's Bench in the case of "Kevil v. King-Harman," on 9th May, in which Thomas Kevil, who had been summoned by Colonel King-Harman for cutting turf on his own holding and fined therefor by the Boyle Bench, although a question of title was raised at Petty Sessions by his solicitor, Mr. M'Morrow, obtained a quashing of the conviction on certiorari; is it the fact that Kevil, in his affidavit, swore, in reference to Mr. Charles Webb, J. P., the agent of Colonel King-Harman, when his solicitor filed an affidavit that he applied for a conditional order by Kevil's authority, as follows:—
  "Beirne (Colonel King-Harman's bailiff came to me in Boyle, and informed me that said

  863
  Charles Webb required me to attend in the estate office. I thereupon went to said office. Said Charles Webb said to me, 'We have been served with an order from the Queen's Bench; we have only a few days to send in a return; and what I want you to do is to make an affidavit that you did not instruct Mr. M'Morrow for this Law.' I replied, I would do no such thing, and immediately left the office;"
  that a further affidavit was made by Mr. M'Morrow, that he had asked Mr. Webb, J. P., by letter, if this were true, and it was not denied in the answer sent, nor in the counter affidavits filed on Colonel King-Harman's behalf; and will the Government call the Lord Chancellor's attention to this sworn allegation against a magistrate, that he had endeavoured to tamper with a client of a solicitor?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said, that perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him to answer the Question. He was informed the statements in the first, second, and third paragraphs of the Question were substantially correct. He was also informed, with respect to the subject of the second paragraph of the Question, that Kevil informed the estate surveyor that he did not want law, and that he did not instruct his solicitor, whereupon he was naturally asked to verify this statement by affidavit. This Kevil declined to do. Under these circumstances, there was no intention of calling the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the case.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say if it was true that this man Kevil had filed an affidavit swearing as was set forth in the Question? He wished also to ask whether that sworn statement remained uncontradicted by this magistrate, who was the agent of Colonel King-Harman?
  MR. HOLMESsaid, he had answered the Question already.
  MR. T. M. HEALYgave Notice that on the Estimates he would call attention to this attempt on the part of an official Member of the Government to put pressure upon a tenant to make a statement in order to make it appear that his solicitor was a perjurer.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACT—GRANARD GUARDIANS.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  864
  Lieutenant of Ireland, Has the attention of the Local Government Board been drawn to the Resolution of the Granard Guardians protesting against the delay in making a Provisional Order for the scheme of labourers' cottages in that Union, inquired into by the Local Government Board Inspector nearly six months ago; and will attention now be given to the matter, as the summer is the best time for building?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Local Government Board had received the Resolution referred to, and the delay was owing to the extent of the scheme, and to the fact that further local inquiry was necessitated as a question of a change of site arose, and a Supplementary Report was required from the Inspector.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—QUARTER AND LAND SESSIONS AT GRANARD.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the cause of the delay in replying to the Memorial sent three months since to the Lord Lieutenant from Granard, County Longford, asking that the Quarter and Land Sessions should be held in that town; and, what determination have the Government come to?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, that before this Memorial could be considered some preliminary steps were necessary. These were duly carried out, and the matter was laid before the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and the decision of the Privy Council, to which it was referred, had not been come to.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could say when it would come to a decision on the matter?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the meeting of the Privy Council was to be fixed by the Lord Chancellor, and he had not yet fixed it.

  POST OFFICE CONTRACTS (IRELAND)—MAIL BETWEEN BUNDORAN AND BUNDORAN JUNCTION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR(for Mr. MAC NEILL)asked the Postmaster General, If he would have any objection to state the terms of the contract, and the amount paid, for the conveyance of the mails by car between Bundoran and Bundoran Junction (or Ballinamallard); and, whether the Post Office Authorities consider the present arrangements adequate or satisfactory?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The mail car in question works in connection with the night mail between Omagh and Enniskillen. It conveys the correspondence for 10 sub-post offices, and the districts dependent thereon. It runs at the rate of seven miles an hour, and the present payment is £320 a-year. The contractor has, however, given notice terminating the contract, and the new tenders are at the present time under consideration. The present arrangements are the best of which the circumstances admit.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—VACANT BUILDING LAND IN VICTORIA STREET, WESTMINSTER.
  MR. BARTLEYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is a fact that the valuable site of building land in Victoria Street, belonging to the United Westminster and the Grey Coat Schools, has been for years occupied simply by hoardings with advertisements; whether it is true that several applications have been made for the site for building purposes; and, whether he can say what rent the Charity receives for the hoardings, and at what amount they are assessed for local and Imperial taxation?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I have no information upon the points raised in my hon. Friend's Question; but I would suggest to him the advantage of addressing himself to the Governors of the Institutions named, several of whom are Members of this House.

  INLAND REVENUE—PENSIONS IN THE SECRETARY'S DEPARTMENT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, owing to changes in the Secretary's Department of the Inland Revenue, nine clerks are to be placed on pension, the majority of whom
  866
  have less than 40 years' service; whether they, or any of them, are to receive pensions based on full 40 years' service; whether also a new class of clerks, with salaries from £725 to £800 a-year, has been arranged, in addition to the existing class of principal clerks, whose salaries range from £600 to £700; whether the Treasury Authorities have satisfied themselves that the Service could not be more economically provided for; and, why such large establishment changes are being carried out in anticipation of the inquiry by the Royal Commission now sitting?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Treasury have recently sanctioned a re-organization of the Secretary's Department of the Inland Revenue on the basis of seven hours' work a-day instead of six. The principle which underlies the change is that the duties of the Department are in future to be discharged by fewer men with harder work and better pay, but at a reduced total cost to the State. I am glad to think that, acting on my suggestion, the Inland Revenue Department have been able to introduce a reform which will set an example that I hope may be followed with great advantage in other branches of that and other Offices. The staff of clerks has been reduced by nine, and consequently nine clerks retire. One of these has already earned his full pension, the other eight will receive the customary abolition terms, their vacancies not being filled. Five of them will receive pensions based on 40 years' service. Of these five one will have actually served 42 years, one 39¾ years, and the remaining three upwards of 30 years. A new class of Committee clerks, at the scale of salary named in the Question, forms a part of the scheme. The salaries involved in the new organization include duty pay, or, as it has been defined, special extra rates of payment attached to superior duties and work of a special character. This system, which has not been found to work well, will be entirely abolished under the present scheme. The Treasury is satisfied with the economies to be effected under this scheme. The new effective staff of the Office will cost less than the old effective staff by £4,300. The immediate saving, after deducting the whole of the pensions of the retiring

  867
  clerks, is £460; but if we deduct, as it is more correct to do, only that portion of them which is not already earned, the saving amounts to £3,300. In view of the greatness of the saving, and the obviously desirable character of the reform in all respects, I have not thought it well to postpone its introduction pending the Report of the Royal Commission.

  IRELAND—LAND COMMISSION COURT—JOHN SMITH, OF CURREMBLA, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that John Smith, of Currembla, County Sligo, tenant of Mr. Arthur Ormsby, Glen Lodge, County Sligo, applied to the Land Commission Court, on the 14th of November, 1885, to have a fair rent fixed for his farm, and, on the 31st of January, 1887, when the case was heard, a reduction was made from £70 9s., old rent, to £40, judicial rent; whether the said Mr. Ormsby, since the service of the originating notice for the fixing of a fair rent, has levied three separate distresses on this tenant; whether the last distraint was made on the 13th of May, with £3 costs, without any previous notice or demand for payment of rent; whether this last distraint for the old rent was for the gale falling due on the 1st of May last, thereby (as there is allowed in this case no running gale) distraining without notice, and with costs, for rent falling due only 12 days previously; whether the Parliamentary Secretary will take steps to prevent a repetition of such like distraints by withholding the services of the constabulary; and, whether the following (publicly posted) is a true copy of the "distraining notice":—
  Copy of distraining notice.
  "To John Smith, and to whom it may concern.
  "Take notice, that I, John Gillespie, of Carramore, in the County of Mayo, have this day, as bailiff to, and upon the authority of, Arthur Ormsby, esquire, of Glen Lodge, in the County of Sligo, distrained on the lands of Currembla, North County of Sligo, which you hold as tenant to the said Arthur Ormsby, the several cattle, goods, and chattels found upon the said lands for the sum of £35 4s. 6d., being rent due for the said lands and premises to the 1st May, 1887, as particulars at foot hereof, and that unless you pay the said rent and arrears, with all legal costs and charges, within 14 days from the date hereof, the said cattle, goods, and chattels
  868
  will be sold according to Law. Dated this 13th day of May, 1887.
  "Half-year's rent to the 1st May, 1887, £3.3 4s. 6d.
  "Signed for above, 29 sheep, 12 lambs, John Gillespie?"
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Land Commissioners stated that the application to fix a fair rent in this case was made in the end of December, 1885. and the case was heard in January, 1887. The old rent was £70 9s., and it was reduced to £45. An appeal was lodged by the landlord, which was still pending. The policy of the Government in affording protection to Sheriffs and their officers in the execution of processes of Courts of Law had been already fully explained. The Government had no knowledge as to the distraints.
  MR. P. M'DONALDsaid, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not answered the paragraph inquiring whether the levies were put in only 12 days after the rent fell due?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had no information as to that.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—EXTRA DUTY OF THE "A" DIVISION.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether on Monday, 9th May, the constables of the "A" Division, who had been on duty all night from 9.45 p.m. on Sunday till 6.15 a.m. on Monday, were compelled to attend parade at Buckingham Palace for two hours on Monday afternoon, when the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London presented an address to Her Majesty the Queen, and that the same men had to go on night duty again at 9.45 p.m. on Monday; whether, on Friday, 13th May, the night duty men of the same Division had to turn out during the day for an hour's drill at Wellington Barracks; that they went on duty again at 9.45 p.m. on Friday to 6.15 a.m. on Saturday; that they had to parade again in another suit of clothes at 12 midday, march to the line of route on the occasion of Her Majesty the Queen's visit to the East End of London, and remain on duty for eight hours, and then had to turn out on ordinary night duty at 9.45 p.m. on Saturday; what are the present

  869
  Regulations for the Police Force as to extra hours of duty and extra pay for such duty; and, whether, in view of the health of the men and the necessity for night duty being efficiently carried out in the Metropolis, he will recommend any alterations in the Regulations?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied)said: The Secretary of State is informed that the statement as to duty done by the police in question is substantially correct, at least so far as a portion of the night duty men are concerned. The extra duty on the 9th and 14th was on exceptional occasions; and on such occasions extra duty must necessarily be undergone, and, as the Secretary of State believes, always has been undergone by members of the Metropolitan Police Force without any complaint. The drill of Friday, May 13, was fixed entirely to suit the comfort and convenience of the men. There are no Regulations as to extra pay for extra duty. Constables are liable to be called upon for duty at any time; but if a constable gets extra duty one day he is compensated by getting less duty another day. The Secretary of State has no reason to believe that the health of the men is impaired, or that the night duty is inefficiently carried out.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRE-LAND—TRANSFER OF CLERKS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Walter Hare, a supernumerary clerk in the Land Judges' Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, has been appointed a junior clerk in the Chancery Division of the said High Court, without passing the competitive examination prescribed for such clerks in the Irish Judicature Act of 1877; whether the attention of the Treasury has been directed to the appointment by nomination of clerks in those Divisions of the High Court, where the patronage reserved to the Judges by said Act has not yet lapsed, and the subsequent transfer of these clerks, as vacancies occur, to the Divisions of the High Court where such patronage has lapsed, in connection with the provisions of the 73rd section of the Irish Judicature Act of 1877; and, why the course adopted in 1883 and 1885, in filling up
  870
  vacancies in the Chancery Division, was not followed in the present case?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: I understand that the question of the validity of the transfer of a clerk from one Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland to fill a vacancy in another Division has been submitted for the opinion of the Irish Law Officers, who have advised that the requirement as to open competition relates only to the appointment of a person for the first time to an office in Court, and does not exclude promotion among the existing offices.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the Treasury Authorities had considered whether this system was not practically an evasion of the Judicature Act; and why the course adopted in 1883 and 1885 on a similar occasion had been departed from on the present occasion?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the Treasury had no power in the matter. The appointment did not rest with them, and the legal validity of it had been decided by the Law Officers.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORgave Notice that he would call attention to this subject on the Vote for Law Charges in Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, was it the view of the Treasury that when a clerk was appointed temporarily he could then be transferred afterwards over the heads of the others without passing any competitive examination? He wished to know if the English Law Officers had been consulted on the subject, and if they concurred with their Irish brethren?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he was not aware that the question had arisen.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is the question.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, this related to the appointment of a special person over whom they had no control. If the hon. and learned Member put a Question on the Paper he would be very glad to answer it.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING- ACTS—LOSS OF THE S. S. "CARMONA."
  MR. EDWARDS-MOSSasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the case of

  871
  the S. S. Carmona, 3,714 tons gross register, a vessel built especially for cotton, and classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's, which sailed from Barrow on February 23rd last, with a cargo of pig iron for America, and has lately been posted at Lloyd's as missing; and, whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to institute a full inquiry into the loss of this vessel?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade have ordered a formal inquiry to be held into the case of the steamship Carmona, which is reported as missing. I may add that a letter has been received from the owners stating that it is not the fact that the Carmona was a vessel built especially for cotton.

  POST OFFICE—RAILWAY AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS—COMPENSATION.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has yet settled the amount of compensation to be paid to the railway and telegraph clerks who have been deprived of their commission on the sale of stamps?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I am glad to be able to state that the terms of compensation have been settled with several Railway Companies, and are in progress with the others.

  NORTH BORNEO—OPERATIONS AGAINST THE NATIVES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attack by the Governors of British North Borneo on the natives of Darvel Bay, in June last, was reported by the authorities of the North Borneo Company to the Secretary of State, and was approved by him, especially the burning of villages, and destruction of paddy, &c; whether the authorities of the North Borneo Company have power to requisition Her Majesty's Navy to assist them in wars in which they may engage without the previous consent of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether there is any systematic control over the Political and Military operations of the North Borneo and Royal Niger Companies, such as
  872
  was exercised by the Board of Control over the East India Company?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The proceedings of the British North Borneo Company authorities in Darvel Bay last June were reported to Her Majesty's Government and approved by them, but not "especially the burning of villages and destruction of paddy, &c." I presume that the etcetera refers to the arms and war canoes. A Report of the proceedings was presented to Parliament and printed on April 29. Her Majesty's naval officers are directed to give aid to the Company in cases of emergency without referring to the Admiralty for orders. On the occasion in question prompt action was considered to be justified. The circumstances were that—
  "A lawless tribe, several thousands in number, notorious for their acts of kidnapping, piracy, and slave-dealing, attacked a settlement of the British North Borneo Company, which they kept in a state of siege and terror. They refused to parley, and proceeded to attack Her Majesty's ships. Commander Hope's prompt action will probably result in the cessation of piracy and kidnapping in those waters."
  There is a systematic control over the political and military operations of the North Borneo and Royal Niger Companies; but these are not yet of such dimensions as to require a separate Department of Her Majesty's Government.

  ADMIRALTY—SPECIAL NAVAL PENSION TO WIDOW OF STAFF COMMANDER W. M. SAVAGE.
  MR. NORRISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will state why the Special Naval Pension of £140 per annum is not awarded to Mrs. Savage, the widow of Staff Commander W. M. Savage, instead of the ordinary pension of £80 per annum; whether this officer, although serving under the Board of Trade at the time of his death, had not, before consenting to take the appointment, stipulated for and obtained official sanction, that such service should be considered as "Full Naval Service," counting towards increase of full pay, half-pay, and retirement; whether the Admiralty requested the Treasury, on 14th December, 1882, also to sanction such arrangement, and whether the Treasury granted such,

  873
  request by Treasury Letter of 8th January, 1883; and, if the non-award to Mrs. Savage of the Special Naval Pension of £140 a-year will be reconsidered?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): A widow is only entitled to a special pension upon proof that her husband's death was directly attributable to extraordinary exposure or exertion on service. The circumstances attending Staff Commander Savage's death do not come within that category. I cannot re-open the question.

  CURRENCY—THE SILVER COINAGE.
  MR. E. HARDCASTLEasked Mr. Chancellor of Exchequer, Whether his attention has been drawn to the great inconvenience arising from the insufficient supply of small silver coin now in circulation; and, whether he will take into consideration the practicability of largely increasing the issue of shillings and sixpences, instead of adding to the already excessive supply of large coins, especially florins, by the issue of double florin pieces?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The issue of shillings and sixpences can be largely increased at once if the public will but ask for them of their bankers. Employers of labour, tradesmen, and other persons constantly requiring change can at once get what they want, and will assist their customers by insisting on having as many shillings and sixpences as they require. The additional trouble of counting the smaller coins and of sorting appears to have acted as a deterrent to the free issue of shillings and sixpences; but there is no reason why it should be so. Silver coin is not issued by the Mint direct to the public, but is passed into circulation in England and Wales through banks. Every country banker has a banker who is his agent in London, and every London banker has an account at the Bank of England. If in any district there is a deficiency of silver coin, the bankers of the district are the first to find it out. They write to their London agents, who obtain what silver coin is required from the Bank of England, and send it to the country bankers. If there is a deficiency in London, the London bankers can, of course,
  874
  make direct application to the Bank of England for the amounts they themselves require. When the stock in the Bank of England becomes diminished, it makes application to the Mint, and supplies of coin of any denomination can be obtained. At the present moment there is a good supply of both shillings and sixpences awaiting issue, and perfectly ready to perform their duty. The following are the amounts of each coin held by the Mint and the Bank of England respectively:—Shillings.—In the Mint, £34,413 worth; in the Bank of England, £264,600 worth; total, £299,013 worth. Sixpences.—In the Mint, £31,004 worth; in the Bank of England, £10,900 worth; total, £41,904 worth. So that there are shillings of the value of nearly £300,000, or 6,000,000 pieces, and sixpences of the value of £42,000, or 1,680,000 pieces, ready for immediate issue. The existence of this large stock at the Bank of England is due to a part of these coins in circulation having been returned. It would seem, from the above figures, that the public should have no difficulty in obtaining as much coin of each denomination as they may require. It may be, however, that the practice of bankers not to sort the silver coin which they receive, but to pay it out again in bags containing certain amounts without reference to the denominations of the individual coins, may be an inconvenience to the public, who may, in this way, not receive the amounts of shillings and sixpences which they require. The remedy for this evil is, of course, in the hands of the public themselves, who should call upon their bankers to give them precisely the coins which they require; but communications will be at once made to the Chairman of the Committee of London Bankers, and to the President of the Country Bankers' Association, asking them to co-operate in meeting the legitimate wants of bank customers. With regard to the action of the Government, it is unnecessary to point out that in the case of a token coinage, like that of silver in this country, on the issue of which the State makes a large profit, and which cannot be used for payments of more than 40s., it is the imperative duty of the Government not to permit issues to be made in excess of the bonâ fide requirements of the public, lest the coins should become depreciated. It is obviously prudent,

  875
  therefore, that silver coin should only be issued through bankers, who are best able to judge what those requirements really are.
  MR. DILLONinquired whether there was not an immense number of foreign silver pieces in circulation in the country?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not think it was true that there was an immense number of foreign coins in circulation; but he had heard of the appearance of certain false coins, though not to any great extent. Of course, it was a matter that required to be carefully watched.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CONVICTIONS FOR ASSAULT.
  MR. FINUCANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constables John Goold and William Crawford, Hospital, County Limerick, and John Barry. Elton, same County, were convicted, on 16th April last, at Limerick Quarter Sessions, by a jury, of an assault on three members of the Kilteely fife and drum band; whether the jury awarded the plaintiffs £10 damages against the constables; whether these men are still in the force; and, whether the Constabulary authorities have inflicted any punishment on them for their violation of the law; and, if not, what course do Government intend to take in the matter?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECERTARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the facts were substantially stated in the Question. These men were still in the Constabulary. Bills would be presented against them at the forthcoming Assizes. No action had been taken by the Constabulary authorities, as the matter was still sub judice.

  CIVIL SERVICE—THE LOWER DIVISION—EXAMINATIONS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. TUITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the examinations for Men Clerkships, Lower Division, Civil Service, usually held in Dublin during the current month, have been postponed; and, whether, having regard to the inconvenience and loss which the delay will inflict upon candidates, an early date will be fixed for the examinations?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON: The examinations for Lower Division Clerkships at other centres as well as Dublin were postponed owing to the small number of the probable vacancies as compared with the number of clerks waiting for employment. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused to intending candidates; but it is obvious that the time for holding examinations can be determined only by the requirements of the Service.
  MR. TUITEasked, if the hon. Gentleman could give the probable date of the next examination?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he did not like to fix the date, for the very obvious reason that that date must be determined very largely by the number of vacancies. But, without pledging himself, he thought he might be justified in stating that it was intended in the ordinary course to hold one about August.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE RECENT DISTURBANCES AT EXETER TRAINING COLLEGE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, What was the result of the inquiry instituted by the Education Department, through Her Majesty's Inspector of Training Colleges, into the disturbances which lately took place at Exeter College; whether it appeared that the complaints of the second year students respecting the instruction in mathematics were well founded; whether the Principal was justified in rusticating two students; and, whether any subsistence allowance has been made to these students during their enforced absence from the College?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Apart altogether from the question of the capacity of a mathematical lecturer, there is no doubt that gross acts of insubordination were committed by students of the College. The Principal, in my opinion, was justified in rusticating two students, who have, so far as I can judge, no claim to a subsistence allowance. The Inspector, after holding his inquiry, has suggested a re-arrangement in regard to the lecturers at the College, and we have written in support of the suggestion to the authorities.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—DENIS LYNCH, AN "EMERGENCY MAN."
  MR. HOOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received any affidavits to sustain the allegation that an emergency man named Denis Lynch, engaged at the eviction of a tenant named Barrett, at Monkstown, County Cork, while under the influence of drink, presented a revolver at a number of women in Barrett's house, though no resistance was being offered to the eviction; and, if so, what steps the Executive will order in the matter?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, that no such affidavits had been received by the Irish Government.
  MR. HOOPERasked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not received that evening four or five affidavits addressed by himself to the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was sorry to say he had not. He saw a note addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland just now, and possibly it contained these affidavits. But perhaps he might be permitted to add that if these affidavits were made or forwarded it hardly made much difference; because in a matter of this kind the proper course for aggrieved persons to adopt was to make informations, and proceed by summons or warrants.
  MR. HOOPER: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state that the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be in his place and answer the Question?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I cannot say that.

  MADAGASCAR—CAPTURE OF NATIVES BY THE FRENCH AND TRANSPORT TO REUNION.
  MR. ATKINSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has reached him that, as stated in public newspapers, Natives are captured and shipped from the port which the French hold on the Western Coast of Madagascar to a French Colony on the Island of Reunion; and, if not, whether he will make inquiry as to the truth of the statement; and, in case the report is true, will Her Majesty's Government make represen-
  878
  tations against such re-opening of the Slave Trade?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I stated about three months ago that grave abuses of the sort had occurred. The forced shipment of Natives did not, however, take place from a port in French occupation. As I then informed the House, energetic measures had been taken by the British and French Authorities; a British man-of-war has since visited the port in question, and it is believed that a stop has been put to the practice.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886—EVICTION OF ALEXANDER TAYLOR, CO. ELGIN.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government are aware that Alexander Taylor is about to be evicted, at Whitsuntide, from his croft and house, at Lake of Moy, in the County of Elgin, the land having been enclosed, and the house built, by and at the expense of the father-in-law of Taylor 50 years ago; that Taylor has occupied the croft for several years, and has fulfilled all the conditions required by "The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886;" whether, having regard to the fact that such an eviction could not take place in the adjoining County of Inverness by reason of the provisions of the Crofters Holdings Act, the Government will endeavour to prevent the threatened eviction being carried out on the 25th May, by means similar to those recently used, in Ireland by Sir Redvers Buller; and, whether the Government will consider the expediency of extending the Crofters' Holdings Act to the crofters and cottars in the Counties of Elgin and Nairn.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON)(who replied) said: The Lord Advocate has been informed that Alexander Taylor is removing from the Lake of Moy at Whitsun Day on an arrangement by which he receives a gratuity, and he is to occupy other premises on the same property. The Government have no intention of interfering in the matter, and are not prepared to make any proposal to extend the Crofters' Holdings Act to any other parts of Scotland. The matter was debated when the Crofters' Act was before the House

  879
  last year, and an Amendment to that effect was negatived.

  "THE BOARD OF TRADE JOURNAL"—CONTRACT FOR ADVERTISEMENTS.
  MR. MONTAGUasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What precedents exist for the insertion of advertisements in Government periodical newspapers; whether he is aware that advertisements were at one time inserted in The Postal Guide, but were withdrawn after representations were made by the trade; whether the Treasury was consulted, and gave its authority for the insertion of advertisements in The Board of Trade Journal; and, whether the contract for advertisements in The Board of Trade Journal, made by the Stationery Office, was put up to tender or competition; and, if not, on whose authority was the contract given to the present holders?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Advertisements appear in the Army and Navy Lids and the Customs Bill of Entry. The Board of Trade have no information as to the statements contained in the Question with regard to The Postal Guide. The contract for advertisements in The Board of Trade Journal was not put up to tender; but was, as is usual, made by the Stationery Office, with the authority of the Treasury, and, in this case, with the concurrence of the Board of Trade.

  ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—THE VOLUNTEER CORPS—THE NEW REGULATIONS AS TO SHOOTING.
  COLONEL EYREasked the Secretary of State for War, What will be the position of those Volunteer Corps which have commenced their musketry course on the old system, in consequence of the delay in the issue of the New Regulations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): For the present year Volunteers will shoot under three different conditions. First, individual Volunteers who have completed their musketry course under the old Regulations will be classified for efficiency according to those Regulations; secondly, individual Volunteers who have commenced, but not finished, their course tinder the old Regulations may complete their course and be classified for efficiency according to either the old or new stan-
  880
  dard, at the discretion of the Commanding Officer; thirdly, individual Volunteers who had not commenced their practice before the issue of the New Regulations must carry out their musketry course according to the New Regulations. The full grant of 35 s. will be given to men who qualify in any of the above ways.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—DUTY AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. O'HANLONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How many hours constitute a day's work for constables; will he recommend that each man engaged in and about the House of Commons be paid for any overtime; and, whether he will say the reason given by Sir Charles Warren for refusing to pay for overtime (with one exception) for the last six months?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The hon. Member seems to be under an entire misapprehension as to the position and duties of a police constable. Like a soldier or a sailor, a police constable is at all times liable to duty. The Commissioner tries to arrange the duties of his force in such a way that no man shall, as a rule, have more than eight hours' continuous work. The Secretary of State has nothing to add to his reply of Friday, except that all the constables at the House of Commons have now been asked if they would prefer to be paid as other constables are, and receive refreshment allowance for overtime, and each man prefers the present arrangement.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—FISHERMEN'S COTTAGES ON THE EAST COAST.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet considered the subject of dealing with the present unsatisfactory tenure and other conditions of fishermen's houses on the East Coast of Scotland; and, if so, how the Government propose to deal with the subject?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON)(who replied) said, that the matter was at present under consideration; and it was not yet settled whether the question could be dealt with by the Govern-

  881
  ment, and, if so, in what manner it could be dealt with to the best advantage.

  NORTH BORNEO—OPERATIONS AGAINST THE NATIVES—H.M.S. "ZEPHYR."
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the Return just laid upon the Table relating to the "recent operations of H.M.S. Zephyr against the Natives of North Borneo;" whether the operations referred to have arisen out of a dispute in reference to the collection of edible birds' nests by the Natives, and were taken under the advice of Governor Treacher, the Assistant President of Silam, and two officers of the North Borneo Company; whether it is a fact that an armed party from the Zephyr, "with Governor Treacher at their head," destroyed the boats, burnt the villages, and destroyed the arms and food, having first shelled the Natives out of their houses, and driven men, women, and children into the jungle; whether he has noticed the following passage in the Report of the Commander of the Zephyr:—
  "I trust my action in this matter will meet with your approval and that of the Commander-in-Chief;"
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government has expressed approval of such action?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I am acquainted with the contents of the letter in question, from which the hon. Gentleman correctly quotes certain ex-tracts. He has omitted to notice that the Report in question concludes as follows:—
  "From what I heard at Silam, I certainly consider that any delay would have caused much loss of life, while at present the loss on our side is nil and I imagine the pirates are more frightened than hurt."
  The Government approve Commander Hope's action.

  BURMAH—LICENSING AND REGULATION OF IMMORALITY.
  MR. ATKINSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that arrangements are made in Burmah, with a view of protecting the health of soldiers, by
  882
  which prostitution is regulated; if he would inquire whether such regulations may not act as a temptation to vice to young soldiers; and, if he would state by what department such regulations are instituted and maintained?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Full information respecting the arrangements referred to was laid before Parliament in a Return moved for by the hon. Member for Shoreditch. The regulations are instituted and maintained by the Governor General and the Governors in Council under the authority of the Indian Law. The Secretary of State has no reason to believe that the regulations are such as to act as a temptation to vice; but, out of regard to the wishes of the hon. Member, he has referred the question to the Government of India for report.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—RICHMOND DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  DR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Under what authority the Governors or Resident Medical Superintendent of the Richmond District Lunatic Asylum refuse to admit into that Institution poor persons properly certified as insane unless certified as dangerous lunatics by Divisional Magistrates of the City of Dublin; whether he is aware that there are at present in the wards of the North Dublin Union 66 female and 27 male lunatics, for whose proper treatment no arrangements exist within the union, or under the existing state of things can be made; and whether he will direct the Governors of the Richmond Asylum to receive, as far as accommodation will permit, all lunatics properly certified as such, whether violent, or dangerous, or otherwise?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The practice with regard to Richmond Asylum appears to be to receive all lunatics, so far as accommodation permits, who, in the opinion of the Governors, are properly certified, and suitable cases, whether violent, dangerous, or otherwise. One of the Inspectors of Lunatics reports, with respect to the lunatics in the North Dublin Union, that they are, for the most part, aged and inoffensive persons, who can with

  883
  due care be satisfactorily treated there, and that when necessity arises they are transferred to the Richmond Asylum.
  DR. KENNYasked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could say whether the Governors of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum actually refused to receive lunatics from the North Union, though they had been properly certified as lunatics by himself?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANcould not say; but he would deal with the Question if the hon. Member put it down.
  DR. KENNYgave Notice that, on going into Committee of Supply, he would call attention to the subject.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—DUTIES OF THE POLICE SERVING IN THIS HOUSE.
  MR. GENT-DAVISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that the police employed in the House of Commons, and doing such long hours, are sent on Sunday to do duty in Hyde Park; whether they do on an average some 16 hours' overtime per week; and, whether Chief Commissioner Warren has any claim whatever upon their services, the men being paid for by the Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: It is a fact that constables employed in the House have occasionally been sent to do duty in Hyde Park, if their services are required there. It is not a fact that they do an average of anything like 16 hours' overtime per week, although, no doubt, the protracted Sittings of the House, and the repeated meetings in the Parks, have of late thrown some extra duty on the police. All police-constables in the Metropolis are directly under the orders of the Commissioner of Police, and are liable to do any duty which he considers requisite.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS—GUARDIANS OF THE CARRICKMACROSS UNION.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can explain the delay of the Local Government Board in sending their Inspector to inquire into and report upon the improvement scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages adopted by the Board
  884
  of Guardians of the Carrickmacross Union; whether he will cause the Local Government Board to attend to this matter without further delay; and, whether he can name the date upon which the inquiry will be held?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, there did not appear to be any unnecessary delay in this case. All the documents in connection with the case were not in the hands of the Local Government Board until the 14th instant. They hoped soon to be able to make arrangements for holding an inquiry, having due regard to the claims of other Boards of Guardians.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had any objection, during the Recess, to look into the question of the delay in making Provisional Orders by the Local Government Board, and ascertain whether that was owing to a want of Inspectors, or to the fact that the legal preliminaries took an unnecessarily long time, in consequence of the fact that there was only one gentleman in charge of the Legal Department?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he would make inquiry into the matter, and pointed out that in this case there was no unnecessary delay, as the necessary Papers were not in the hands of the Local Government Board.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that what he asked was that there should be an inquiry into the subject generally, because almost every Board of Guardians in Ireland was complaining of the delay.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could now say when the inquiry would be held?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid,, he thought it would be held at the end of the month; but he could not absolutely fix the date.

  PARIS EXHIBITION, 1889.
  MR. H. T. DAVENPORTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What are the facilities which this Government are prepared to afford at the coming Paris Exhibition to English exhibitors; and, whether he is aware of the importance which they attach to the appointment

  885
  by their Government of some person to assist and advise them and to protect their interests?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The particular facilities to be afforded will depend chiefly upon the number and the wishes of intending exhibitors from this country; and steps will be taken to ascertain these when the arrangements for the Exhibition proposed to be held in 1889 shall have assumed a formal shape.

  ADMIRALTY—SHEEES AT PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.
  ADMIRAL MAYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has yet had time to consider and decide upon the Estimate for erecting sheers at Pembroke, which was officially sent in to the Admiralty on the 31st March; whether, in view of the small sum for which the present obsolete sheers can be replaced by efficient ones, he still intends to run the risk, which must to some ex-tent exist, of sending the Aurora and Nile to another port without their engines; and, whether sending vessels built at one port to be engined and boilered at another causes delay in their completion, and consequent additional expense to the country?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It has been decided not to erect the sheers at Pembroke at present. It is believed that arrangements can be made for putting in the engines and boilers of the Nile at Pembroke, and that it will only be necessary to send the Aurora elsewhere. As a matter of economy, there is no practical difference in the cost as between vessels sent from Pembroke to another yard before they are engined, or retained at Pembroke till the stage of progress is reached at which they could have their engines placed on board.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—INTERFERENCE OF THE POLICE AT DON-GANNON.
  MR. M. J. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By what right, and under what authority, a party of constables, under the command of a Resident Magistrate named Mayne,
  886
  broke into the private grounds of Mr. W. Moffett, of Dungannon House, on Thursday 19th instant, and attacked with batons a number of persons assembled therein; if, at the same time, and notwithstanding a proclamation signed by certain magistrates and publicly posted up, which warned people not to assemble in Dungannon on that day, an organized crowd gathered at the Railway Station to receive the Rev. Dr. Kane, a prominent Orangeman, who came from Belfast to address a public meeting at Dungannon, and carried out his intention without interference from the police or magistrates; and, if he will state why the measure of toleration extended to Orangemen in the town of Dungannon was refused to Nationalists, who met in a private place a mile distant?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said, he had nothing to add to what the Chief Secretary for Ireland had already said with regard to the prohibition of this meeting at Dungannon. The reason for the interference of the Resident Magistrate was because one of the meetings was being held out-of-doors, on the ground of Mr. Moffett, in defiance of the Proclamation. There was really no attack by batons on the persons assembled, and the meeting was subsequently hold in a building without being interfered with. There was no attempt to hold the other meeting outside. It was held in a building, and there addressed by Dr. Kane. Practically, the same course was adopted with regard to both meetings.
  MR. M. J. KENNYasked, did the Orangemen not proceed in procession from the railway station to the Town Hall, and why was not that prohibited?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Question on the Paper had only reference to public meetings, and he had answered it.
  MR. M'CARTANasked if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was aware that Mr. Moffett had commenced proceedings against the Resident Magistate for the recovery of £500 for damage done to him on the occasion?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was not aware of it.
  MR. WADDYasked, whether it was not a fact that,

  887
  although they had been informed that Dungannon was to be proclaimed for both parties, the Orangemen wore allowed to assemble and walk in procession through the street, while the Nationalists were prevented from doing so?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that both parties had a sort of procession, but one party held their meeting in a building; but the other attempted to hold a meeting in the open, which was prohibited.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES (IRELAND)—TRAWLING IN DONEGAL BAY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR(for Mr. MAC NEILL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any formal order as to the result of their investigation has been promulgated by the Fishery Commissioners who held inquiries last year in the towns of Donegal and Killybegs, on the question of permitting trawling in Donegal Bay; and, whether he is aware that in consequence of the absence of any authoritative pronouncement on the subject the peace is likely to be endangered, in consequence of disputes between the ordinary fishermen and the trawlers?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: No such order has been issued, as the case of Donegal Bay can only be dealt with in connection with the general question of trawling on the Coast of Ireland, which will be considered when the necessary inquiries have been completed. The Government are not aware that the peace is likely to be endangered.
  In reply to Mr. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.),
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was informed that the Fishery Commissioners had not the facilities afforded by the presence of a steamer.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had any information to the effect that, owing to the hostile action of the fishermen against the trawlers, the revenue cutter had been invited to protect the trawlers?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had no information as to that. The only information he had received was that some of the linesmen would oppose
  888
  by every Constitutional means the course of action of one of the trawling vessels.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked why the Fishery Commissioners had not issued an order announcing their decision on the subject of the inquiry held by them?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had already stated that they did not intend to issue a special order with regard to Donegal Bay until they issued an order with regard to all the bays on the West of Ireland.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS—LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, If Regulations have been lately issued by the Irish Board of Lights forbidding lighthouse keepers to retain boats at their stations; and, if so, could he so modify the Regulation as to afford the families of the lighthouse men reasonable opportunities of attending Divine Service, attending school, and calling for medical assistance in cases of emergency?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Commissioners of Irish Lights, some years ago, found that the habit of lighthouse keepers absenting themselves from their station in boats was often the cause of interruption to the service and of danger to the men themselves. They, therefore, decided to prohibit the keeping of boats at lighthouse stations. The matter was again under consideration in 1885, when the Commissioners saw no reason to alter their former decision. To meet cases of emergency, a system has been arranged by which keepers can communicate by signal with the shore.
  COLONEL NOLANasked if there was any provision made to enable them to attend Divine Service and school?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, the only opportunity that could be afforded would be the one which arose when a steamer called at the lighthouse bringing provisions and other necessaries. The Commissioners could not alter the Regulations they had made prohibiting boats being constantly at lighthouses for the reasons he had stated.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Am I to understand that they are to have no oppor-

  889
  tunity of attending Divine Service or school?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, these Regulations related to the time when the men were on duty.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—CARRIAGE OF MAILS TO KILMALLOCK.
  MR. FINUCANEasked the Postmaster General, Is there a day mail from Bruff and Kilfinnane, two of the most important towns in East Limerick, to Kilmallock; if so, is there a despatch of such mails from Kilmallock to Limerick, the capital of the county; and, if not, could one be despatched; does a day mail to Limerick pass by Bruree Railway Station, which is convenient to Kilmallock; and, has a car owner at Kilmallock proposed to carry the mails to Bruree on reasonable terms; and, if so, will some such arrangement be made, to establish a day mail between Limerick and the above-mentioned towns?
  THE POST MASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): There are day mails from Bruff and Kilfinnane to Kilmallock. These mails do not at present reach Kilmallock in time for the despatch by the day mail to Limerick, which is sent by way of Charleville. The train which conveys this day mail to Limerick passes Bruree Station, which is about four miles from Kilmallock. No offer for the conveyance of mails from Kilmallock to Bruree Station by car has been received. A later despatch to Limerick might be afforded, which would include the day mail letters from Kilfinnane and Bruff if the bag wore sent by car to Bruree to catch the train at that point; but a still better service might be afforded by despatching a bag from Kilmallock by the up day mail train viâ Limerick Junction, from which point there is now a train to Limerick, reaching Limerick at 4.30 P.M. The question of making this arrangement is under consideration.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—NATIONALIST MEETINGS IN ULSTER.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the meetings lately convened by Protestant Home Rulers at Armagh and Caledon were proclaimed by the Government, after the announcement of counter demonstra-
  890
  tions, to be held at the same time and place, by so-called Loyalists; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to proclaim all meetings of Nationalists in Ulster whenever other persons thus threaten to hold counter demonstrations at same time and place, in opposition to the Constitutional rights of peaceable citizens?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: These meetings were prohibited by the local magistrates. The Government have nothing to add to the statement of policy made on their behalf by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary during the debate on the subject on Friday last.
  MR. CHANCEasked, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knew that the magistrates alleged that any illegality or breach of the peace had been committed prior to the proclamation of these meetings?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he presumed not. He presumed the magistrates acted for the purpose of preventing a breach of the peace.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF TWO CONSTABLES, CO. LIMERICK.
  DR. TANNER(for Mr. FINUCANE)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that on the night of the 29th of last March two policemen, who are on protection duty in Limerick in an evicted farm of Major Hares, Chester, entered the house of Mrs. Ryan, of Cloonlusk, Doon, County Limerick, in a state of intoxication, and after abuse of herself and family broke her windows; if Mrs. Ryan and her son followed the policemen to their barrack, and found both so helplessly drunk that she believes they mistook her house for their barrack; if Mrs. Ryan reported the occurrence to District Inspector Dunne, Newpallas; and, if the Constabulary Authorities have ordered an investigation; and, if not, will the Government direct them to do so?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The only foundation for this Question appeared to be that Mrs. Ryan reported at the police station that

  891
  about 10 o'clock on that night she heard a knocking at the window, and that a small pane of glass was broken. She got up, and she alleged she saw two policemen at the window, and she subsequently pointed them out in the barracks. She also alleged they were not sober, though she declined to say that they were drunk. Several witnesses declared that these policemen were sober both when they left and returned to their quarters that night. The Inspector General had instituted a further inquiry into the ease.
  DR. KENNYasked, whether the witnesses who declared the policemen to be sober were policemen themselves?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: They probably were. I cannot say.

  VACCINATION LAWS—ASSAULT ON THE POLICE AT LEICESTER.
  MR. PICTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Joseph Wright, carpenter, Leicester, and George Butler, labourer, Belgrave, were convicted, on Saturday 14th May, before the Leicester County Magistrates, of throwing, the former a stone, and the latter a rotten egg, at policemen engaged in protecting the auctioneer at the sale of goods belonging to Mr. King, of Mere Road, New Evington, and distrained in enforcement of a fine inflicted for the non-vaccination of a child dead more than a year ago; whether Joseph Wright was fined £10 18s., including costs, and George Butler £3 3s. 6d.; whether the evidence against the accused was given solely by police officers, and was contradicted, in the former case by three and in the latter case by four bystanders; and, whether the Government will consider the advisability of modifying or remitting the sentence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: Wright and Butler were convicted, to the perfect satisfaction of the Justices, of assaulting the police in the execution of their duty. This assault was part of an organized attempt made in the locality to prevent the law from taking its course by threats of violence to the auctioneer and by riotous proceedings at the auction. The Secretary of State sees no reason for interfering with the sentence.

  PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT, 1874—THE REV. J. BELL COX.
  MR. HOAREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the Resolutions unanimously passed by both Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury, and also by the House of Laymen, regarding—
  "the in appropriateness of imprisonments as a penalty ensuing on a prosecution concerning Ritual; "
  and, whether, taking into consideration that a clergyman, the Rev. J. Bell Cox, is at present undergoing such imprisonment, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to consider such alteration of the Law as may be necessary to abolish the penalty of imprisonment in the case of "prosecutions concerning Ritual?" The hon. Member, in putting his Question, expressed his pleasure at the altered circumstances brought about by the release of the Rev. J. Bell Cox.
  MR. CHANNINGalso asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the imprisonment for contumacy of the Rev. James Bell Cox, Vicar of St. Margaret's Church, Prince's Road, Liverpool; whether he is aware that the Ritual adopted by Mr. Cox in the services of his church was approved by the large majority of the congregation; and, whether, under the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of introducing in this House, or in "another place," a measure to amend "The Public Worship Act, 1874," and other Acts on the same subject, with a view to restrict the opportunities now existing of instituting prosecutions not supported by a majority of the parishioners or congregations directly affected?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I rejoice, Sir, in common, I think, with everyone, that the circumstances under which this Question is put have been changed by the release of Mr. Bell Cox from prison. The facts, I believe, are generally correctly stated, although I have no official information as to the Resolutions passed either by the Houses of Convocation or the House of Laymen. I regret very much that imprisonment should be inflicted as a penalty under circumstances of this character; but the hon. Gentle-

  893
  man must be aware that legislation affecting the Church is always attended with, great difficulties in this House. Therefore, I am not at liberty to enter into any engagements of the kind suggested in the Question.

  LONDON CORPORATION (CHARGES OF MALVERSATION).
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will afford facilities for the discussion of the Report of the Select Committee on the Charges against the Corporation of the City of London?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): If the hon. Member will place on the Paper the terms of any Motion he may desire to make on the subject I will consider them, and see if it is possible for the Government to afford him facilities for their discussion; but, as the hon. Member is aware, very much will depend on the progress made with Public Business.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that I shall put upon the Order Book of the House the following Notice:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the conduct of Gabriel Prior Goldney, City Remembrancer; Sir John B. Monckton, knight, Town Clerk; of the members of 'the Special Committee' of the Corporation; and of other members and officials of the City of London, as disclosed in the Report of the Select Committee on London Corporation (Charges of Malversation), is derogatory to the dignity, and deserves the reprobation, of this House."

  THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT AND THE CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any where to be found an authoritative statement of the relation of the British Parliament to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; particulars of the powers of the British Parliament and the Man Parliament respectively in Man; whether any authority is exercised by the British Parliament in the Channel Islands; whether the Channel Islands are in any sense a dependence of this country; whether the Island authorities claim that England is a dependence of the Channel Islands, representing Old Normandy; whether
  894
  each is independent of the other; and, generally, the conditions and limitations of Home Rule as exercised in the Channel Islands and Man?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It would be better to refer the hon. Member to the available sources of information; and I am unable to express any opinion with regard to the relations between these Islands and the Imperial Legislature, as that relation appears uncertain. For particulars of the powers of the British Parliament and the Man Parliament respectively, I must refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Isle of Man in 1792 (not numbered), also to Stephen's New Commentaries on the Laws of England, p. 98 of eighth edition of 1880, and to Black-stone's Commentaries, p. 89 of edition of 1857. As regards the Channel Islands, Stephen's Commentaries (p. 100 of same edition) may be consulted, and Blackstone (p. 95, same edition). A Royal Commission was appointed in 1846 to inquire into the Criminal Law in the Channel Islands, and reported fully as to Jersey and Guernsey in 1847. As regards Jersey, questions of civil organization of government are better elucidated by the Report of the later Royal Commission in 1857.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—RETURNS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What were the under mentioned sums in connection with ''The Purchase of Land Act (Ireland) 1885" up to 30th April, 1887:—Total advance; sum applied for and refused; sum applied for respecting which no decision had been arrived at; sum sanctioned after modification of terms of purchase, with amount of such modification?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The total advance sanctioned is £2,456,525; the total advances issued, £1,093,652; the sum applied for and refused, £358,123; the sum applied for respecting which no decision had been arrived at, £475,265. Of the sums applied for and refused, the amount of £69,045 was subsequently sanctioned, the sum originally applied for having been £82,669. I have only received this information by telegraph.

  WALES—ANTI-TITHE LEAGUE.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the renewed agitation in Wales against the recovery of tithe rent-charge, and of the violent resistance opposed to officials fulfilling their lawful duty, by bands of men organized and directed by the "Anti-Tithe League," the Government will issue Proclamations in Welsh and English, declaring the illegality of these tumultuous proceedings, and will also direct prosecutions to be instituted against the leaders of this criminal conspiracy?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir, I rise to a point of Order; and wish to ask whether your attention has been directed to the form of this Question? It is a Question about the agitation against tithes in Wales; and I would direct your attention to the latter part of the Question—
  "Declaring the illegality of these tumultuous proceedings, and will also direct prosecutions to be instituted against the leaders of this criminal conspiracy."
  I wish to know whether the House should keep upon its records a Question which assumes that the agitation which these persons are engaged in is a "criminal conspiracy?"
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that the assumption to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alludes ought not to be made in the Question.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In replying to the Question which has been put to me, I will omit all reference to the character of the agitation. I am very glad to say I am informed that the agitation is subsiding in. Wales with regard to the tithe rent-charge, and that people there are beginning to see the necessity of complying with the existing law.

  WALES—INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION—GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.
  MR. CORNWALLIS WESTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to offer the same measure of assistance to Wales as is given for educational purposes to Scotland and Ireland, by an annual grant of money for intermediate education, in-
  896
  cluding Training Colleges for teachers in the event of a Bill dealing with this subject, and commanding the general support of Welsh Representatives, being submitted to Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): University Colleges of Wales now receive grants of £12,000 a-year, as against £16,000 paid to the Scotch Universities as Teaching Colleges, and about £5,000 to the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. Her Majesty's Government, while recognizing the importance of this subject, are not prepared, for obvious reasons, to pledge themselves as to the nature and amount of the financial assistance that could be looked for from the State in the event of any Bill being brought forward.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—ISSUE OF DEFECTIVE WEAPONS—THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as seven high officials, one of whom is still a member of the Ordnance Committee, and another is the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, have been named by the Secretary of State for War as being between them responsible for the manufacture or issue to almost the whole of the men of Her Majesty's Navy of arms, described by a Special Committee as "absolutely inefficient, untrustworthy, and unfit for service;" and, as Notice has been given of a Motion to give effect to the statement of the Secretary of State for War, by stopping or reducing the pay and pensions of such officials, if, after proper discussion, this House should be of opinion that they have failed in their duty, he will, under these circumstances, arrange that the Votes for such pay and pensions shall, in the Army and Navy Estimates respectively, be taken on an early day, and be brought forward at such a time as to allow of ample discussion, and of a Division being taken upon each of them?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am informed by my right hon. Friend that letters have been written by his direction from the War Office to the Army officials mentioned by him as responsible for the issue of inefficient arms, calling their attention to the Report of the Special

  897
  Committee, and asking for any observations they may have to offer. No replies have yet been received. The Admiralty deny that their officers are in any way responsible for the defects in strength or material of the weapons alluded to, their responsibility being confined to reporting upon the pattern, so far as its weight, size, and handiness were concerned. The responsibility for the quality of warlike stores has always rested with the manufacturer or issuer of such stores, and not with the user. I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to raise a debate and take a Division upon the subject generally. I shall be very glad to confer with him, and to arrange that an early day shall be fixed for the discussion of an Estimate or Estimates which will give him the opportunity of raising the question which he desires to bring before the House.

  THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—RULE 2 (SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE).
  MR. PROVAND&c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When he intends to move the Resolution relating to Sittings of the House, which is the next in order of the New Procedure Rules?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, the hon. Member must see that in the present state of the Business of the House it was not possible to give any information as to the renewal of the discussion upon the Rules of Procedure.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—CROFTERS AND COTTARS FISHING BOATS—LOANS.
  DR. CLARKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government are aware that the average cost of a suitable fishing boat and nets is about £400; whether, in view of the evidence contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Crofters and Cottars, as to the inability of crofters and cottars to furnish such a sum of money, it is the intention of the Government to continue to impose the conditions stated in the Memorandum of the Secretary for Scotland in January last, by which crofters and cottars, who desire to borrow money from the Fishery Board for the purchase of fishing boats and nets, are compelled to pay down one-third or one-
  898
  fourth of the cost of fishing boats; and whether any money has yet been lent to crofters and cottars under the Crofters Act; and if the present conditions are found to be prohibitory, will the Government re-consider the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The average cost of a fishing boat and nets suitable for fishermen in crofting parishes is about £350. Of this sum only one-fourth, or about £88, need be found by the fishermen, while the Fishery Board advances the remaining £262. As from six to eight men are required as a crew for boats of this kind, the sum to be provided by each fisherman would not exceed about £12. These terms are more liberal than those recommended by the Royal Commission referred to by the hon. Member. A very large number of applications have been received by the Fishery Board for loans on the present terms; but no money has been actually advanced as yet. As the present conditions have not yet had a fair trial, the Government are not now prepared to reconsider them.

  AGRARIAN CRIME (IRELAND).
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to put a Question to Her Majesty's Government, of which I have not been able to give either public or private Notice, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is not in his place, perhaps I might ask the kind attention of the Attorney General for Ireland. [At this point Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, entered the House from behind the Speaker's Chair.] The Question is simply to this effect. It appears to me that it would be very desirable for the House to be in possession, during the remaining discussion on the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, of the latest information in regard to agrarian outrages in Ireland; and I wish to know whether the Government will be so good as to arrange that, as the month of May will have expired before the House meets again, the agrarian offences reported to the Constabulary in May shall be made known to the House when it meets again.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR, IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Yes; I shall be very happy to lay the information before the House; but

  899
  I can now give the House the satisfactory information that since the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill has been introduced there has been a marked decrease of crime.

  EGYPT—THE ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could now inform the House if the Convention which had been negotiated with the Porte with regard to Egypt had been forwarded, and what were its provisions; and if his right hon. Friend could not inform the House now when he would be in a position to give the House full information with regard to it, and lay a copy of it upon the Table?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The telegrams received this morning from Constantinople are somewhat confused, and therefore I am unable to give any definite answer as regards the conclusion of the Convention; and, naturally, until we have received positive intelligence I cannot name a time for informing the House of it. But, as I have already told the House, the Government will take the earliest possible opportunity of giving full information on the subject.

  CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—THE NAVAL REVIEW.
  In reply to Sir WILLIAM CROSSMAN (Portsmouth),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)said, that the Indian troopships which it was proposed to place at the disposal of the Houses of Parliament on the occasion of the Naval Review afforded the best accommodation of any vessels over which the Admiralty had control. Their draught, however, was not such that they could enter Portsmouth Harbour at all states of the tide; but arrangements would be made by which tugs would be in attendance for the accommodation of those who may wish to return early.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)—THE BUDGET SUBSIDY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which he had given him
  900
  private Notice—namely, Whether any decision had been arrived at as to the local expenditure of the £50,000 in Ireland; and whether the Government would provide for the carrying out of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Public Works in Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, no final decision had been arrived at as to the disposal of the £50,000. The Government intended to act upon the Report of the Royal Commission by beginning the necessary surveys which had to be taken in hand with a view of carrying out the recommendations of the Commission; but they did not pledge themselves to the adoption of the whole of these recommendations. They intended, however, to proceed at once with the survey of important works of arterial drainage.

  THE ADMIRALTY—DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON THE CLERICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  In reply to Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)said, it was the fact that a small Departmental Committee had been appointed to inquire into the clerical establishments of the Admiralty. When he was preparing the Estimates last year, he found that considerable reductions could be made in certain establishments if the Treasury would give the Admiralty a free hand for the purpose of pensioning those who had not sufficient work. Certain correspondence ensued, and a short time ago the approval of the Treasury was obtained, so far as to justify the Admiralty in making inquiry; and it was for the purpose of ascertaining how far reductions could be made that this Committee had been appointed. He did not suppose it would interfere at all with the Report of the Royal Commission.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired, whether the First Lord would lay on the Table a statement showing what, in the opinion of the Admiralty Authorities, would be an adequate allowance for the Admiralty establishment?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is for that object the Committee was appointed.

  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND—CHURCH BUILDING IN PITSLIGO, ABERDEENSHIRE.
  MR. ESSLEMONTwished to ask the Solicitor General for Scotland a Question of which he had given private Notice. Perhaps the House would allow him to explain that that arose out of a misunderstanding in an answer given to a Question by the Lord Advocate, on account of insufficient information. It was, whether in Pitsligo parish there was not a church to be erected by an old Statute, which was beyond all the requirements of the circumstances, at least double the size required practically for the whole parish; and, whether an assessment of 101–10 d. in the pound was levied on the whole parish to erect this unnecessary building?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON): The question of re-building this church has, I understand, been brought before the Court of Session on an appeal by the heritors against the decision of the Presbytery, and the Court affirmed that decision, the law being that a new church must be of sufficient size to accommodate two-thirds of the examinable population of the parish. It is not, therefore, possible for the Government to interfere to prevent this expenditure, which does not, however, fall on the public, but on the heritors.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked, as arising out of the same Question, whether the Government would take any steps in regard to powers such as those which seemed to be quite unnecessary, and not desired by anyone in the parish to remedy the law on the subject?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give Notice of that, which is a somewhat large question.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE COURT OF APPEAL—THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question regarding the relative positions of the English and Irish Lord Chancellors. He wished to know whether the English Lord Chancellor ever sat in the Court of Appeal? At present the Irish Lord Chancellor, who was an active politician and a Member of the
  902
  Cabinet, sat in the Irish Court of Appeal and had recently given a judgment with reference to a political question.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, Irish Lord Chancellors had always sat in the Court of Appeal, and continued to do so. In England, until a comparatively recent time, the Lord Chancellor was in the habit of hearing appeals, sometimes sitting with the Lords Justices, and sometimes alone. The reason he did not do so now was that the duty of presiding in the Appellate Court of the House of Lords was sufficient to occupy his time. He was not aware that there was any difference regarding the judicial duties of the two Lord Chancellors.
  MR. T. M. HEALYinquired, whether there was any instance of any previous Lord Chancellor of Ireland sitting in the Court of Appeal, when, at the same time, he was a Member of the Cabinet and an active politician?
  MR. HOLMESsaid, he was not aware that there was any instance, at all events in recent times, of an Irish Lord Chancellor being a Member of the Cabinet; but he presumed the Lord Chancellor, being always a Member of the Government, was also a politician.
  MR. T. M. HEALYgave Notice that on the Motion for the adjournment, he would call attention to the position of Lord Ashbourne, and contrast it with the position of Lord Halsbury and other previous Irish Lord Chancellors.

  SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE WHITSUN HOLIDAYS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was absolutely necessary they should all be brought down here to-morrow simply to move the adjournment of the House; and whether some convenient arrangement might not be made at the close of to-day's proceedings to move the adjournment over the holidays?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH), said, he was in the hands of the House on a question of that character. It had been usual to meet on the day of the adjournment for the purpose of adjourning the House; but if the House thought proper the adjournment

  903
  should be moved at the close of this evening, he should be exceedingly glad to agree to it.
  Subsequently,
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, at what hour the Government would consent to report Progress with the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill? If the House was to adjourn that night, it would be impossible to discuss important Motions and Orders which stood upon the Paper, unless the debate in Committee on the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill were adjourned at a reasonably early hour.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he could not enter into an engagement to adjourn at any particular hour. They ought, he thought, to make considerable progress with the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill that evening. It was not the desire of the Government to take any other contentious matter after the first Order of the Day. If the second clause were passed to-night he would be exceedingly glad to move the adjournment of the House. He wished to point out that he acceded to the demand of the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in the belief that it was in harmony with the views of hon. Members opposite. The suggestion did not come from the Government.

  ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES—THE COMMITTEE.
  MR. MASONasked, when the Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates would be nominated?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, the Motion would be made after Progress was reported on the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. If the hon. Gentleman could give him any information as to when it would be, then he would be glad to answer him.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE IMPRISONMENT OF FATHER KELLER.
  MR. DILLONwished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention had been called to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Dublin on Saturday, in which it was decided that the warrant under which
  904
  Father Keller was arrested was an illegal warrant, and the rev. gentleman was released; whether Father Keller had suffered two months' imprisonment under this illegal warrant; whether he was aware that this gentleman had been put to an expense of close on £100 in obtaining his release; and whether under all these circumstances, and in view of the charges which had been made in connection with this case, the Government would have an inquiry instituted into the circumstances attending it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said, that the only information which the Irish Government had on the subject was that which they obtained from the newspapers. It was a matter with which the Government had nothing whatever to do. It was not one into which the Government could inquire, as it was a question which had been decided by successive Law Courts in the ordinary course of legal procedure.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary, Whether they were to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer as final, that the Government would give no redress, or even inquire into the merits of the case, in which a gentleman had been detained in prison for two months under an illegal warrant, and put to an enormous expense to obtain his release?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that it would be impossible for the Government to inquire into the merits of the case. It had never been under their consideration at all; and he did not know what further answer the hon. Gentleman thought that this or any other Government could give.
  MR. CHANCEasked, Whether the Government did not send a number of policemen to arrest this gentleman under this warrant; and whether of the four Judges the three permanent Irish Judges declared, the warrant to be illegal, and only one Judge—the Irish Lord Chancellor—held the warrant to be valid?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR, said, he believed the Court of Queen's Bench, had previously declared the warrant to be legal; but they had nothing to do with that. As regarded the police, all the Government did was to send down the

  905
  police to protect the officers of the Court in the execution of their duty.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that, under these circumstances, he begged to give Notice that at the earliest opportunity he would call attention to the conduct of the Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy in Dublin in this particular case; and if he was not permitted to call attention to the conduct of the Judge, he would call attention to the conduct of the Official Assignees and other officials of that Court.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE IRISH MILITIA.
  In reply to Lord CLAUD HAMILTON (Liverpool, West Derby),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, that the issue of Martini-Henry rifles to the Irish Militia would be commenced almost immediately.

  THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1886—THE CLOSURE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to put a question to you, Sir, upon a point of Order—namely, whether an hon. Member who in the course of a debate has spoken on the Main Question can move the closure, having regard to the fact that a Member who has spoken on the Main Question cannot move an Amendment? I also wish to know whether entries cannot be made in the Journals of the House, or in the index of Hansard, showing whenever the closure was applied the original amount of time occupied by the House on the Original Motion, and the number of speeches made upon it?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is quite competent for an hon. Member to move the closure in the circumstances specified by the hon. and learned Member. With reference to the hon. Member's second question as to a record being kept of the time occupied in discussion before the closure is moved, or of the number of speakers who have had an opportunity of speaking before the closure was applied, I do not think that it would be advisable to accede to the suggestion which the hon. and learned Member made.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would like to ask whether the Government, who, I presume, find the funds for the publication of Hansard, will instruct the managers of Hansard to record exactly
  906
  in future volumes the number of speeches on every question that is closured, and the time occupied in the discussion? It may, I think, form a useful precedent for Members of the Conservative Party to refer to.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I think the hon. and learned Member can hardly be in earnest. I do not feel able to give the hon. and learned Member an answer that would be satisfactory to him.

MOTIONS.

  JUBILEE THANKSGIVING SERVICE (WESTMINSTER ABBEY).
  THE FIRST LORD or THE TREA-SURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)THE FIRST LORD or THE TREA-SURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster) moved—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider what means shall be adopted for the attendance of this House at the Jubilee Thanksgiving Service in Westminster Abbey on the 21st day of June; and that Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Childers, Mr. David Plunket, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Viscount Lewisham, Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. Cavendish Bentinck, Sir Frederick Mappin, and Mr. Craig Sellar be Members of the said Committee; Five to be the quorum."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he had no objection to the names, but asked why there was no representation of the Irish Members?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS)explained that the hon. Member for South Meath (Mr. Sheil) had requested him not to nominate upon the Committee any Member from the ranks of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. The name of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had been withdrawn from the list of the proposed Committee by special request. His name had been withdrawn on the ground that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite did not want to be placed upon the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.

  JUBILEE SERVICE IN ST. MARGARET'S CHURCH.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I desire to submit a Motion to the House which will, I am sure, command the support of all hon.

  907
  Members who were in St. Margaret's Church yesterday. It is—
  "That the Thanks of this House be given to the Right Reverend William Boyd Carpenter, D.D. Lord Bishop of Ripon, for the Sermon preached by him on Sunday before this House, at St. Margaret's, Westminster, and that he be desired to print the same; and, that Mr. William Henry Smith and Mr. Secretary Matthews do acquaint him therewith."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have great satisfaction in seconding that Resolution, which I believe to be both reasonable in itself and in conformity with the usage of the House on such occasion.
  Motion agreed to.

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

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th May.]
  [TWELFTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
  Clause 2 (Extension of summary jurisdiction).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It may be for the convenience of the House if I were to state the views of the Government with reference to the remaining Amendments to be considered by the Committee to this clause. The Government are anxious that their views should be known to the Committee, with the object of advancing Public Business as far as it is possible to do so. Therefore, we have carefully considered the Amendments on the Paper, so far as they involve any question of principle. If hon. Members will look at the Amendments they will see that from the Amendment numbered 60 down to No. 69 all the Amendments upon the Paper refer either to questions which have been already adequately discussed and virtually decided upon Clause 1, or the earlier sections of this clause, or are Amendments which have no very substantial character. In saying this, I have no wish to speak with any disrespect of
  908
  any hon. Members whose names are attached to them; but I simply draw attention to the fact that the Amendments No. 60 to No. 69, inclusive, involve no principle which has not been dealt with by the House. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] At all events, that is the opinion of the Government, and hon. Gentlemen, as I understood, wished to know the view which the Government take of the questions which are still to be discussed in Committee. The Amendments Nos. 70 and 72 appear to me to refer to questions which deserve some consideration, and if the hon. Members in charge of those Amendments desire that the opinion of the Committee should be taken upon them no objection can be raised. The Amendments from 72 to 84, again, are not of a very serious character. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen, I understand, had no desire to provoke unnecessary opposition on their part, and we desire to give full consideration to every Amendment which raises a question of principle. The Amendment numbered 85, on the other hand, does involve a principle. The right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) proposes to leave out the words "unlawful assembly," and obviously that is a very proper matter to submit to the consideration of the Committee. There is also another question raised by the hon. Member for South Cork (Dr. Kenny), to leave out that part of the sub-section which relates to "wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of a house or land." The Government propose, at present, to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), No. 105, for the omission of Sub-section 4, which relates to offences under the Whiteboy Acts. We consider that it may be right to specify the offences included in the Whiteboy Acts, which we desire to bring under the operation of this Bill, rather than to include them by a reference to the Whiteboy Acts generally. That is a question which is now under the consideration of the Government, and therefore in withdrawing the sub-section at the present time we reserve to ourselves full right and power to reconsider it on the Report if it should appear desirable to do so; either to include offences in the Whiteboy Acts generally, or, as we wish to be able to do, to specify the particular offences in

  909
  the Whiteboy Acts which will come under the operation of this Bill. After the Amendment 105, there is nothing of consequence until we come to 110, which is also an Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney, and it is obviously a question which may fairly be considered by the Committee. Then the Amendment numbered 112, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), is also of some importance. But when those Amendments are disposed of there is nothing of importance until we come to 114, in the name of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), which may, perhaps, receive some consideration. I refer to these Amendments with a view of assisting the Committee to arrive at an early decision on the clause itself. They are the only Amendments which raise any question of principle, and I venture to hope that we can be allowed to get the clause passed this evening after the very long consideration which has been given to the early parts of it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Whiteboy Acts are of an extremely long, vague, and involved character; and I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury proposes to have the matter discussed on the Report stage with the Speaker in the Chair, or whether he proposes to recommit the Bill with respect to this subject? I must say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is most unsatisfactory.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE-LAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): We in no case propose to embody the Whiteboy Acts in the Bill. What the Government reserve to themselves a right to do is to enumerate the offences not already in the Bill, but to embody them from the Whiteboy Acts.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it intended to consider this enumeration with the Speaker in the Chair or with the Bill in Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With the Speaker in the Chair, I apprehend, on the Report.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then, in that case, I shall raise the entire question on the Motion to omit the sub-section.
  MR. MARUM: I have now to move, in page 2, line 22, after the word "Law" insert—
  910
  "Provided also, That, for the purposes of this section, every offence of criminal conspiracy shall be deemed to be 'a case of difficulty' within the meaning of the inhibiting proviso of the Commissions of the Peace of Justices, and in that regard the chairman of the county shall be deemed to be as of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the Law."
  The object of this Proviso is to secure that criminal conspiracy cases which, I believe, will be very infrequent, should go before a Judge of a Superior Court to be tried in Dublin in accordance with ancient precedent, and not by a Resident Magistrate. The inhibiting Proviso of the Commissions of the Peace of Justices forms the subject-matter of the Amendment, and defines the mode of procedure in regard to important trials—such as treason, murder, and criminal conspiracy. It states that such cases shall be heard before two or more magistrates, but that no judgment shall be given except in the presence of one of the Judges, or by a counsel learned in the law. The Commission provides all through that if cases of this kind are brought before the ordinary Justices, such Justices shall not act upon them except in the presence of some person learned in the law. Am I to be told that conspiracies of such a serious character involving political matters—such as "the Queen v. O'Connell," or "the Queens v. Parnell," or "the Queen v. Dillon," each of which was tried in a Superior Court, are not very serious offences and worthy of being considered by a Superior Court. That is the object of my Amendment, and my contention is, that if you allow Boycotting and the lower class of offences to be tried under the summary jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrates, the more serious offences shall not be tried by summary jurisdiction. I should like to know whether any hon. Member, knowing that a Resident Magistrate possesses his authority by virtue of a Commission which contains words ordering them not to act in cases of difficulty, can have the hardihood to say that conspiracy and matters concerning criminal conspiracy are not cases of great difficulty? In the Statute referred to in the Amendment the expression used is "conspiracy now punishable by law," and formerly "the law" dated from the first day of the Session in which a particular Act of Parliament was passed; but by an Act passed in the 33rd of Geo. III. there is a direction to the

  911
  Clerk of Parliament to insert the exact date on which an Act passed. When this Bill passes and becomes an Act, the Act itself will date from the period put down in that way by the Clerk of Parliament, and it may be argued that the words "now punishable by law" refers to the entire Act, and will include within them not merely conspiracies according to Common Law, but conspiracies under the Act itself, so that intimidation will be governed by the Definition Clause which includes intimidation—what may be called technical and constructive intimidation. In other words, a man may be brought under the summary jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate in regard to matters which amount to nothing beyond a civil inquiry. Take the case of a temperance meeting. A licensed victualler might suffer injury by the adoption of temperance principles, and he might summon the persons who held a temperance meeting before a Resident Magistrate, declaring that he was intimidated, and the word "intimidation" would cover everything calculated to put him in fear, so far as his trade or business was concerned, and in that way the case might be held to amount to an offence against the law and to a criminal conspiracy. I give that as an illustration to show the nature of "a case of difficulty" which the Resident Magistrate might be called upon to determine as being a case of criminal conspiracy or not. Take the case of the land which, under the clauses of this Bill, will be a fruitful subject for putting the law in motion. The question will arise in this way. A combination of two or more tenants not to pay more than a certain amount of rent upon a particular farm will be held to be a conspiracy, and no doubt it would be provided the tenant occupying the land took no part in it. If he were included it would be illegal, and would amount to a criminal conspiracy. I only mention this to show the kind of cases which will come before the Resident Magistrates, none of whom are bound to belong to the Legal Profession. Questions of the utmost nicety will have to be dealt with. Let me take a very ordinary case. In the latter part of the clause it is made a criminal conspiracy to interfere with the administration of the law. In the case of "the Queen v. O'Connell," one of the counts of the
  912
  indictment charged O'Connell with attempting to supersede the Courts of Law. No doubt, that was an indictable offence; no doubt it was conspiracy; but, at the same time, allow me to quote three or four lines from the judgment delivered on that occasion to show the great delicacy and difficulty of the matters which these Resident Magistrates may have to determine. The learned Judge—Lord Denman—dealing with the eight counts of the case of "the Queen v. O'Connell" said—
  "I am by no means clear that there is anything illegal in exciting disapprobation of a Court of Law, for the purpose of having other Courts substituted more cheap, efficient, and satisfactory."
  Another learned Judge said—
  "I have entertained some doubt whether the eight counts show more than one thing—namely, a desire to prove the inefficiency of certain tribunals, and to point out that others more efficient may be substituted for them by the Legislature."
  That is a very nice question of law, and yet it is one which may come before a Resident Magistrate for decision, as well as other questions which are at present tried before the puisne Judges and at bar in Ireland. Questions which now engage the attention of special juries may be dealt with in the same way, and am I to be told that the summary jurisdiction of two Resident Magistrates is quite sufficient to deal with them, especially when such delicate issues as are involved in charges of conspiracy and other serious offences are at stake. In a multiplicity of matters which may arise under this clause, I contend it is absolutely essential that they should be dealt with by the Judges of the Superior Courts. The proposal of the Government is to enlarge enormously the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrates, and there can be no doubt that, under the provisions of this Bill, cases of conspiracy must frequently arise which would be well worth the presence of the Judges of the Superior Courts, in accordance with the ancient traditions of the law. That is the object of my Amendment, and it coincides with the results of my own personal experience. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that it is not my intention to say anything disrespectful of, or offensive to, the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. I have been associated

  913
  with them for many years, and it would ill become me to say a word against them; but I speak with knowledge when I assure the Committee that it will be necessary to act with extreme caution in entrusting them with such extreme powers in delicate and difficult cases. In 1883, when the Crimes Prevention Act was in operation, there was a case in which a clergyman was summoned to give bail for his good behaviour before the Petty Sessions. I was in the habit of attending as a magistrate. When I reached the Court I found two Resident Magistrates there, one of whom I had never seen before. The regular Resident Magistrate did not attend. It was proved by a policeman that the defendant had issued a "No-rent manifesto" in the case of certain tenants of Lord Castletown. The rev. gentleman, who was not defended by counsel, denied the charge made against him, and proposed to give evidence himself either by affidavit or orally- I stated to those Resident Magistrates my own opinion—which was afterwards justified in the case of "the Queen v. Dillon"—that that evidence ought to be received; but those two gentlemen would not accept my view of the law, and they absolutely refused to receive it, although the summons was in the form of requiring the defendant to show cause why he should not be bound over to be of good behaviour. They refused to hear him either orally or by counsel. I said I thought it was desirable that the rev. gentleman should be allowed to come forward and say that he repudiated the offence with which he was charged; but the Resident Magistrates ruled against me, and decided that the rev. gentleman should enter into bail to the extent of £500 for his good behaviour, or go to prison for six months. The rev. gentleman objected to enter into any bail at all, and I proposed to give him some time for consideration. Since then, the ruling in the case of "the Queen v. Dillon" has shown that I was right even in requesting that he should have time to deliberate whether he would give bail or not. That, however, was also refused by the Resident Magistrates, and the rev. gentleman was sent to the common gaol. The town was filled with military at the time, a side car was procured, and I saw this rev. gentleman placed upon it, and alongside of him was one of the
  914
  Resident Magistrates, who, acting in a judicial capacity, had ruled as I have stated. He was taken 14 miles through the country in the custody of that magistrate, who, notwithstanding the fact that he had just been acting in a judicial capacity, was now acting in an executive capacity. I believe the right hon. and learned Attorney General (Mr. Holmes) has told us that the Government desire to sever the judicial from the executive capacity. I think that is a most desirable thing; but the circumstance I have mentioned actually occurred, and side by side on this car was the Resident Magistrate with a revolver slung around him, and policemen on either side, and in that fashion this rev. gentleman was carried 14 miles across the country to a common gaol. I saw the whole circumstance with extreme pain, and I sympathized very much with the magistrate who found himself placed in that painful position. It is not against the act of that gentleman that I protest, but against the system which requires him to perform such an odious duty. I have only mentioned the circumstance, in order to show how it has been the case in the past—that a person performing an important function has been required subsequently to act in an executive capacity—almost in the capacity of a gaoler in reference to a man whom he had previously tried and sentenced. I trust the Government will be prepared to accept my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed.
  In page 2, line 22, after "Law," insert "Provided also, That, for the purposes of this section, every offence of criminal conspiracy shall be deemed to be 'a case of difficulty' within the meaning of the inhibiting proviso of the Commission of Peace of Justices, and in that regard the chairman of the county shall be deemed to be as of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the Law."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): There has been no subject in connection with the Bill which has been more fully discussed than the question whether Resident Magistrates should be entrusted with the jurisdiction given them by the 1st sub-section of the 2nd clause. A few days ago, the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) moved an Amend-

  915
  ment to provide that these questions should be referred to a special tribunal of Judges. That Amendment was discussed at considerable length, and was ultimately withdrawn. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) pointed out, upon that occasion, that the same question would arise at a subsequent and more appropriate stage, and that view was conceded by the Committee. Therefore, under the circumstances, the hon. and learned Gentleman must excuse me from following him through his argument. I will simply point out to the Committee that it is impossible to accept this Amendment. I am quite sure that no lawyer would be able to understand it. The Commission of the Peace stands now, I believe, in the form in which it has stood for some 400 or 500 years. It gives power to the magistrates to deal generally with every sort of crime. I need only call attention to the fact that the magistrates have simply summary jurisdiction expressly given to them, and no outside jurisdiction whatever. If the Amendment were accepted, where are you to get your Queen's Counsel, or your County Court Judge, or your barrister learned in the law? The suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member is not a practical one at all, and the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is one which will be more appropriately met at a later stage of the Bill. I therefore trust that the hon. and learned Member will not press the Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is reasonable in the request he now makes for the postponement of the general discussion, inasmuch as the Government have made no concession whatever with respect to the tribunal when it comes on for discussion at a later stage. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were prepared to make some concession of that kind, his appeal would come with great weight; but in the absence of some engagement or promise of that kind, I hardly think the request the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes to us is reasonable. In discussing the Amendment, we are bound to assume that the rest of the Bill will remain in the position in which it now stands; otherwise, we should never know where
  916
  we were exactly. If the Government will give us a promise that they are prepared to make a concession on this particular point, no doubt that would modify our opposition. Otherwise, we must take the Bill as it stands, and we must now discuss the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Kilkenny on the assumption that the Government do not intend to make any concession on the question at all. That being so, I think the right hon. and learned Attorney General was called on to give some better reply to my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment than he has done. As I have already pointed out, he has contented himself by refusing to discuss the Amendment. Now, it appears to me that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is one of a most reasonable character. The right hon. and learned Attorney General sneered at that remark, and he has taken exception to the document from which the Amendment is taken—namely, the Commission of the Peace issued to magistrates, on the ground that that Commission is of a venerable character. He should have remembered that this is not the first time the Executive of Ireland have referred to enactments of a venerable character to enable them to carry on the government of Ireland. In one case the Executive of Ireland found itself compelled to go back to an enactment of the Reign of Edward III., and that being so, surely we are justified in taking up this old Statute which regulates the jurisdiction of the magistrates, providing that we can find anything in it which is calculated to mitigate the ferocity of this Bill. On the question of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend I will only say this, that I cannot imagine a more dangerous precedent than that which is stated in this Bill, in handing over to any Court of Summary Jurisdiction the power of dealing with questions of criminal conspiracy. It is the first time—as far as I know—that Parliament has ever placed in the hands of the Resident Magistrates a summary jurisdiction on the question of conspiracy. We have had numerous Coercion Bills before, some of them so varied in their provisions that they were capable of being applied almost to anything. From time to time the Government have not hesitated to pass provisions to enable them

  917
  to vindicate what they call law and order; but this is the first time in which the Government have handed over to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction powers of this kind to enable Resident Magistrates to deal with difficult cases of conspiracy. That being so, I think my hon. and learned Friend has acted in a very reasonable manner in suggesting that when the Government get this extraordinary and unprecedented clause, they should fence the enactment around with the protection which in ordinary cases of summary jurisdiction exercised by unprofessional persons has always been adopted hitherto. When officials of this character, who are not learned in the law, are called upon to decide difficult and delicate questions which may arise in regard to the Law of Conspiracy it should be, at any rate, incumbent upon them to seek the advice of the ordinary legal tribunals of the country, or to have associated with them some competent person learned in the law. I certainly think that my hon. and learned Friend was entitled to some better reply than that which he has received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. Let us consider what the various difficulties are which may possibly arise under this clause. I do not intend to discuss them in detail, but in order to show the difficulty of the task the Court of Summary Jurisdiction will be required to perform under this Bill. I think the argument founded on that difficulty perfectly relevant and proper. The sub-section of this clause, which is now under discussion, practically includes offences of three kinds. First, offences arising from the letting, hiring, and selling of land; secondly, conspiring to Boycott; and thirdly, offences, described in the very vague language of the sub-section as to "interfering with the administration of the law." Let me point out to the Committee that hardly any two lawyers who have spoken on this subject—and we have had a great many legal speakers—have agreed in opinion in regard to this question of conspiracy. One of the public journals, speaking of the Plan of Campaign, pointed out that at least a dozen judgments upon similar questions have been delivered by the English Courts, all of which are of the most conflicting character, and the whole net result is to show that the law itself
  918
  is in a state of doubt and uncertainty. The question, hitherto, has never been properly settled, and the difficulties which have arisen in declaring what the law really is have arisen from the fact that the English Judges have never yet come to an agreement as to what the real nature of a conspiracy is. So far as one very limited branch of the subject is concerned the law is perfectly clear—namely, that if a person conspires to commit an act which in itself is an offence, or which is intended to effect an illegal object, he is guilty of a criminal conspiracy.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member confining himself to the question raised by the Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The argument of the hon. Member is certainly wider than the special argument involved in the question.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I beg to move, "That the words down to the word 'violence,' in line 24, stand part of the Bill." be now put.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to know if it is competent for the right hon. Gentleman to interrupt an hon. Member in the middle of his speech for the purpose of moving the closure, or, indeed, to make any other Motion in the middle of an Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That course has already been adopted.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, Sir; but an opinion was expressed that it was a most inconvenient course, and that it ought not to be followed as a matter of practice.
  THE CHAIRMAN: All I can say is, that it has been followed as a matter of practice, and has been construed to be within the Rule.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is it competent to move the closure with regard to a particular portion of a clause until the Amendment under discussion has been disposed of?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Rule runs in this way—
  " That if a clause be then under discussion, a Motion may he made that certain words de-fined in the Motion stand part of the Clause."
  It is obvious, therefore, that when the clause is under consideration, there must be some previous Motion before the Com-

  919
  mittee, or about to be proposed, which will be over-ridden by applying the Motion for closure.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I point out that the word "then" in the Rule provides that the closure shall only be applied to the particular Motion before the House. In my view, the use of the word "then" means that the closure may be applied to the Motion then before the House, and to nothing further.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is right upon that point. It is necessary to apply the closure to the special Amendment under discussion.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Then I presume I shall be in Order in resuming my speech?
  MR. W. H. SMITH(who rose amid cries of ''Order!") said: I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:-Ayes 231; Noes 125: Majority 106. [7.40 P.M.]

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Brown, A. H.

  Ainslie, W. G.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Ambrose, W.

  Burghley, Lord

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Caine, W. S.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Caldwell, J.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Charrington, S.

  Atkinson, H. J.

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

  Baggallay, E.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Coddington, W.

  Barclay, J. W.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Baring, Viscount

  Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Cross, H. S.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Crossley, Sir S. B.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Beckett, W.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

  Davenport, H. T.

  De Cobain, E. S. W.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

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

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Biddulph, M.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Bigwood, J.

  Dixon, G.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Bond, G. H.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Boord, T. W.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

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

  Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  920

  Elliot, G. W.

  Holmes, rt. hon. H.

  Elton, C. I.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Evelyn, W. J.

  Howard, J.

  Ewart, W.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Hubbard, rt. hn. J. G.

  Farquharson, H. R.

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R. J.

  Hulse, E. H.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Hunter, Sir G.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Jennings, L. J.

  Fielden, T.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Finch, G. H.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

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

  Kerans, F. H.

  Kimber, H.

  Finlay, R. B.

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

  Fisher, W. H.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.

  Knowles, L.

  Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.

  Lafone, A.

  Lambert, C.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Laurie, Colonel R. P.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Lees, E.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Legh, T. W.

  Fry, L.

  Lethbridge, Sir R.

  Fulton, J. F.

  Lewis, Sir C. E.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Low, M.

  Gedge, S.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Gibson, J. G.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Giles, A.

  Maclean, F. W.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Goldsmid, Sir J.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Mallock, R.

  March, Earl of

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Marriott, right hon. W. T.

  Green, Sir E.

  Greene, E.

  Matthews, rt. hon. H.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Grove, Sir T. F.

  Mildmay, F. B.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Milvain, T.

  Hall, A. W.

  More, R. J.

  Hall, C.

  Morrison, W.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Hamilton, Lord E.

  Noble, W.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Norris, E. S.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Paget, Sir R. H.

  Hardcastle, E.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Pearce, W.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Pitt-Lewis, G.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Powell, F. S.

  Heaton, J. H.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Heneage, right hon. E.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Reed, H. B.

  Richardson, T.

  Hill, A. S.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Hoare, S.

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Robertson, W. T.

  Holloway, G.

  Robinson, B.

  921

  Ross, A. H.

  Vernon, hon. G. R.

  Russell, T. W.

  Vincent, C. E. H.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

  Waring, Colonel T.

  Webster, R. G.

  Sellar, A. C.

  West, Colonel W. C.

  Selwyn, Capt. C. W.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  Whitley, E.

  Sinclair, W. P.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Wilson, Sir S.

  Smith, A.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Spencer, J. E.

  Wood, N.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Stanley, E. J,

  Wright, H. S.

  Taylor, F.

  Yerburgh, R. A.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Young, C. E. B.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  TELLERS.

  Townsend, F.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Trotter, H. J.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Haldane, R. B.

  Harrington, E.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Allison, R. A.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Anderson, C. H.

  Healy, M.

  Asquith, H. H.

  Healy, T. M.

  Austin, J.

  Hooper, J.

  Barran, J.

  Howell, G.

  Barry, J.

  Hoyle, I.

  Blake, T.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Blane, A.

  Illingworth, A.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  James, C. H.

  Bright, Jacob

  Kenny, C. S.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Kenny, J. E.

  Brown, A. L.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Lalor, R.

  Byrne, G. M.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Cameron, C.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Leahy, J.

  Campbell, H.

  Lyell, L.

  Carew, J. L.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Chance, P. A.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Channing, F. A.

  M'Donald, P.

  Clancy, J. J.

  M'Donald, Dr. R.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Cobb, H. P.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Coleridge, hon. B.

  Mahony, P.

  Connolly, L.

  Mappin, Sir F. T.

  Conway, M.

  Marum, E. M.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Mason, S.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Cossham, H.

  Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

  Cox, J. R.

  Morgan, O. V.

  Craig, J.

  Morley, A.

  Craven, J.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Cremer, W. R.

  Nolan, J.

  Dillon, J.

  O'Brien, P.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Dodds, J.

  O'Connor, A.

  Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

  O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

  Esslemont, P.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  O'Hea, P.

  Flower, C.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Paulton, J. M.

  Foley, P. J.

  Pickard, B.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Gane, J. L.

  Picton, J. A.

  Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

  Power, R.

  Gilhooly, J

  Priestley, B.

  Gill, T. P,

  Pyne, J. D.

  922

  Quinn, T.

  Summers, W.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Reid, R. T.

  Tuite, J.

  Roberts, J.

  Waddy, S. D.

  Rowlands, J.

  Wallace, R.

  Rowlands, W. B.

  Warmington, C. M.

  Rowntree, J.

  Wayman, T.

  Russell, E. R.

  Will, J. S.

  Schwann, C. E.

  Wilson, C. H.

  Sexton, T.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Smith, S.

  Yeo, F. A.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Stack, J.

  TELLERS.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Stuart, J.

  Sullivan, D.

  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 217: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 170.) [7.55 P.M.]
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I claim now to move that the Question, "That the words 'any person who shall wrongfully, and without legal authority, use violence or,' stand part of the Clause, be now put."
  MR. DILLON: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask the Government whether a number of Gentlemen who have paired did not vote in the last Division?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not a breach of the practice of this House for a number of Gentlemen who have paired to vote in a Division?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a question upon which I can rule.
  Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 212; Noes 122: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 171.) [8.15 P.M.]
  Question put, "That the words 'any person who shall wrongfully, and without legal authority, use violence or,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 190; Noes 116: Majority 74.—(Div. List, No. 172.) [8.30 P.M.]
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The Amendment which I rise to move is to substitute the word "threats" for the word "intimidation" which is now in the clause, and which is very vague in its meaning. I am of opinion that the Resident Magistrates may be inclined to give the word a meaning which it might not be intended to bear, and that, therefore, it may be used as an instru-

  923
  ment of great tyranny and oppression. It seems to me that if the Government accept this Amendment, that the words "violence" and "threats" will be sufficient for bringing to bear upon the offences specified the penalties of this Bill, and that the offence which is popularly known as intimidation is one which ought not to be admitted into an Act of Parliament under that vague designation. Suppose a man takes an animal to a fair for the purpose of selling it, and suppose the people at the fair do not fancy the animal he has for sale, of course, whatever may be the defects of the animal he is offering, he may go to the Resident Magistrate and allege that he has not been able to sell his animal, and that, although no actual threats have been used to him, he believes there is intimidation in the air. I do not think that when a man makes a complaint of that kind, and is not able to show some substantial grievance—namely, that violence or threats have been used towards him, any Resident Magistrate should have it in his power to imprison a person or persons upon such an allegation. And I want the Government, if they intend that intimidation is to cover something beyond violence or threats, to tell us what other act is to be included under this term. Let them tell us what they have in view, and what is the mischief at which they wish to strike. If there is any definition in any Act of Parliament which describes what it is the Government intend to reach by this clause, let them put it into the Bill; but I do urge upon them not to place such enormous power in the hands of the Resident Magistrates by the use of so vague a term as "intimidation," which, as I have said, may be applied by them in a very improper manner. I will instance two cases which happened under the recent Coercion Act. At the time when the Act generally associated with the name of the late Mr. Forster was in force, a number of tenants were evicted; the Land League, which was then in existence, erected some huts on the roadside for the use of these persons, and for that purpose they sent down a common carpenter from Dublin. This man was not a politician; he knew nothing about the state of affairs, and was simply employed as an ordinary artizan to do the work. But what did Mr. Clifford Loyd do? He argued that
  924
  the huts might in some way be used to intimidate the landlord; he arrested the carpenter who was doing the work, put him into gaol, and the man was bound over to be of good behaviour. Now, it is against acts of this kind that we wish to provide in seeking to have this Amendment put into the Bill. It seems to me monstrous that this constructive intimidation should be imported into the legal process in Ireland. We say that if the Executive can find any actual violence or threats, let those acts be punished; but we say, also, that acts of constructive intimidation ought not to be struck at. I will now refer to another case, which occurred, I think, in the County of Limerick. In this instance, a policeman summoned a boy who, he said, had whistled at him as he was passing along the street; he alleged that this little boy had intimidated him—that he was whistling at him in derision. I do not know what the result of this case was. I think a good deal of fun was made of it at the time, and I only use it as a specimen of the manner in which we may expect that an Act of Parliament of this kind will be used, if we import into it words which, although they may have a meaning in the dictionary, have no legal meaning.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 24, after "or," leave out "intimidation," and insert "threats."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman either asks us to limit the operation of this clause by the words he proposes, or he does not. If, in his opinion, the terms "threats" and "intimidation" are synonymous, his Amendment is frivolous. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 19, he will see 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. Now, the hon. Gentleman has not told us which of the clauses of that definition he objects to,

  925
  and which he thinks would be struck out by substituting "threats" for "intimidation," for the Government are of opinion that there is not one of the acts or objects specified in that definition that we can afford to part with from this Bill. We cannot afford to restrict by one iota the words of the clause, and the hon. Member will, therefore, understand that it is impossible for us to accept his Amendment.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: On the return to this House of my late Friend, Mr. Miall, there was, during his candidature, a good deal of exclusive dealing. I want to know whether, if exclusive dealing occurred in Ireland, it would bring the unfortunate person who was the cause of it within the meshes of this Bill?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seems to suppose that we on these Benches do not know the meaning of words. He says that the definition of intimidation is in this Bill. Now, I say there is nothing of the kind. He refers us to the Definition Clause, and he says this is the definition of intimidation—
  "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,"
  and so on. "The expression 'intimidation' includes"—exactly; but where is the definition? It includes, you say, certain things; but what does it exclude? It may mean anything in addition to what it includes. This is no definition at all; but the Government who bring in the Bill call it a definition—because you say that a gallon of water includes a glass; that is a definition of what a glass or gallon is. Will the Government put in, instead of the word "includes," the word "means?" If they do, then they will have defined intimidation; but, until then, they tell us nothing as to the meaning of the word. I ask the Solicitor General for England if it is a definition of intimidation to say what it includes without saying what it excludes? I venture to say there is no lawyer on that Bench, unless he is a fool——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. and learned Member will pay a little more respect to the dignity of the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall observe your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I wish to point out the way in which this clause has been worked. And as an instance, I will refer to a case which occurred on the 7th of October, 1883. On that day a man was charged before the magistrates with having used threatening language. The words complained of were used towards another man at an auction, and they were—"Leave it to me." The magistrate said that the man had a good character, but that, as he had used threats, he should send him to prison for seven days. That is one instance of what the definition "includes." Here is another instance of intimidation. On the 22nd December, 1882, three respectable tenant farmers were sentenced to 14 days' hard labour for stopping a hunt, the Resident Magistrate who sentenced them being himself one of the huntsmen on the occasion—that is to say, we have a number of tenant farmers who object to hunting; one of the magistrates is a member of the hunt, and he says that the gathering of these people means intimidation, and he gives them each 14 days' hard labour. Besides this, 10 respectable young men were sent to prison for not dispersing. The magistrate is described in your own list as a man without any qualification. Again, on another occasion, a number of tenant farmers and labourers protested against the Marquess of Waterford's hunt at Curraghmore; all that was established against them was that they shouted—they used no threats—and yet they were sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. Will anyone tell me that there is anything in this Act to warrant this? And yet it was done, and I say it will be done again under your definition "includes." We object to ''intimidation" as a word; it is not an English word, and it has no precise meaning. If you said "frightens," you would make the matter more clear: but you will not do that. You put in "intimidation," which means nothing. I say that so long as you have no definition of this word in the Bill—of words which are of that vague character that no one can understand them—so long will you leave to the Resident Magistrates an enormous amount of salvage over and above the wording of the Bill. I appeal to the Solicitor General, the Home Secretary, or the First Lord of the

  927
  Treasury, to say whether the word "includes" has any value at all as a definition?
  MR. MOLLOY: I challenge the Solicitor General to say that any definition of intimidation is given in the Bill. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deny that any act that may be complained of by any person will be sufficient to get a decision against a person charged with intimidation? The wording is, beyond expression, vague—
  "The expression 'intimidation' includes any words or acts intended and calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself,"
  and so on. I will undertake to say that if I speak at the next election disparagingly of the person opposed to me, and in such a way as tended to the loss of his seat, I should come under this clause. You do not define anything here, and yet the right hon. Gentleman points to these vague words as a justification for refusing this Amendment. Surely the Government do not intend that this word shall be used in the same way as my hon. Friends have pointed out the word "intimidation" has been hitherto used. If the Government do not intend that, what is the use of their retaining the word? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to meet our views, either by suggesting another expression, or giving us a definition? It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has some object in retaining "intimidation," although I presume his object is not to retain it for the purpose referred to by my hon. Friend; but if he has a definite purpose, why can he not, in the interest of fair play, meet our views? We have given him the reasons why we object to the term "intimidation." We have shown, from what has happened in Ireland, how absurd this word is; we have given the case of the prosecution of a little boy of 11 or 12 years of age for having whistled a tune to intimidate the police, and which boy was kept in prison for one day at least. No doubt, the Government do not want the clause to be used in that way; but it has been so used, and I see no reason why it should not be used in this way again, considering the fact that the magistrates who so used it are still on the bench. We appeal to the right hon.
  928
  Gentleman to accept this Amendment, and if he does not do so, it will be difficult to believe that the object is to use the Bill for other purposes than the word "intimidation" implies.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I think there is a great distinction to be drawn between the two words "includes" and "means;" much more so than the Government acknowledge. I should like to know whether this section includes public meetings at which it is easy to imagine that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) and others will address their constituents, and give them advice generally? When we have this word interpreted by the Resident Magistrates, I am inclined to think that it will be very hard to escape the charge of intimidation under those circumstances. I am, also, curious to know whether it is to include aid and assistance which it may be necessary to give to evicted tenants? We know that the landlords are engaged largely in issuing notices to quit; we have heard how a certain tradesman who went down to a locality to erect huts was charged with intimidation; we have heard that the erection of huts is an act of intimidation in itself, and that if it had not been for the action of a labourer who seized the reins of the Lord lieutenant's horse in the streets of Dublin, those huts would not have been erected, and the tenants would have been to this day devoid of shelter. We think that the Resident Magistrates will consider it an act of intimidation for anyone to bring aid and assistance to tenants who have been evicted, and a person engaged in what the whole world regards as an act of charity will be subjected to the very severest punishment provided by the Bill. I remember that either the Solicitor General, or the hon. and learned Gentleman now Secretary of State for India, made an eloquent speech against the arrest of a young lady who was engaged in this work, and who was sent 14 miles by road to gaol in charge of policemen, for having brought assistance to evicted tenants. These necessary charitable acts have been and will be performed again, if not by the ladies in Ireland, by gentlemen, and I want to know whether those engaged in them will be liable to the very severe penalties provided against the offence of intimidation? I do not, of course, presume to argue this question from a legal point of

  929
  view; but I am rather inclined to think that if this Act becomes law it will not be long before I and others, whom I know well, will come under its operation. I can scarcely conceive, unless this Amendment be admitted, that a man will be able to turn upon his heel in Ireland without coming under its provisions. I know the Resident Magistrates; I know the conduct of the men who are engaged in these political movements in Ireland, and I know it is impossible for them to avoid this, having regard to the interpretation that will be put on the word "intimidation" by the Resident Magistrates, and I am, therefore, anxious that there should be some clear definition of the term. I should like the word proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Mr. M. Healy) to be inserted, rather than that which we have in the clause, in order that we might know our position so far as to be able to avoid offending against the Act in the future, because, if lean possibly avoid it, I do not desire again to see the inside of one of Her Majesty's prisons.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland thinks that by referring to the Definition Clause he is giving a clear idea of what the Government intend by the word "intimidation." That word has a historical existence. In O'Connell's case it was declared that the word did not import any very bad meaning; but it has since been recognized to import a harmful meaning. The Definition Clause of the Government explains the term "intimidation" as covering that which it never covered before. The extent of ground which it is now made to cover ought to have been in the mind of the draftsman of this Bill, because in the preceding Definition Clause you have a saving clause for trade unions, and that saving clause is that the crime of combination, which the Trade Unions Acts of 1871 and 1875 dealt with, is legal. That being so, in order to ascertain what the draftsman of the Bill meant to include by the word "intimidation" you must go back to the Act of 1875. The 7th section of that Act provides penalties for intimidation, for the offence of violence or otherwise; and it sets forth that every person who by intimidation endeavours to compel any other person to abstain from doing, or to do, any act which such person has
  930
  a right to do or abstain from doing rightly or wrongly shall, on conviction, be liable to the penalties in the Act. What are the things made legal intimidation by the Act? They are—using violence to or intimidating another person, his wife, or children, or injuring his property, persistently following such other person about from place to place, or hiding any tools or clothes, interfering with him in his work, watching or besetting the house where he carries on work, or approaching such place, and the following of any such person by two or more persons in a disorderly manner in any street or road. That is the definition in the Act of 1875, and, as I mentioned before, Section 18 says that no act which is not an offence of intimidation under that Act shall be an offence of intimidation under this Bill. What is the effect of the Definition Clause if it remains in the phraseology to which we have been referred by the Chief Secretary for Ireland? It is to include any word or act calculated to put any person in fear of injury or danger to himself, or any person of his family, or person in his employment, and so on. Now, when you have extended the meaning of intimidation in such a manner as that, what will it not come to? Every form of language which the person to whom it is addressed may not like—words conveying only advice—may be considered to be intimidation. A caution or intimation that if such and such a course is followed certain results will take place—everything of this sort, however bonâ fide it may be, will be intimidation; and when we consider who are the men to administer the clause, it appears against reason to place such an elastic form of words at their disposal There was one of that body who said—"We will fight the Nationalists down to Hell; and if Hell is frozen over we will fight them on the ice." Men who are capable of using such language as that are not those to whom the interests of the Nationalists should be confided, and yet, under this Bill, you will enable them to construe as intimidation what is simply meant as advice. I ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the construction I have put upon the clause is not perfectly correct, and whether the definition of "intimidation" is not so wide that no Nationalist can reasonably be held to be safe before any Resident

  931
  Magistrate? Inasmuch as we have now reached the word "intimidation," it is all important that we should have a clear definition of a term so elastic and dangerous. I ask the Solicitor General whether he is content that the interpretation of the word "intimidation" is one which has been accepted and recognized in the English Law Courts; and whether, in the present political and social circumstances of Ireland, it would be just or wise to give to the word a wider signification than it has received in England?
  MR. CLANCY: The attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has been directed to four or five very extraordinary cases of the abuse which is possible under the word "intimidation;" but the right hon. Gentleman, as well as the other Members of the Government, have remained perfectly silent. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, indeed, paid no attention to them while they were being stated, and, as soon as he could, went out of the House. It has been pointed out that this Definition Clause, which makes it in the power of any Resident Magistrate to say that any word or any act done or said to any person is intended to put him in fear is so wide that it is enough to put every man in Ireland in prison. I suggest that it is too wide, and that what the Government desire is to have it too wide. They do not want a measure only to enable them to deal out justice; they want a wide-sweeping measure which will enable them to do anything they like in the interest of the landlord class, and in the interest of those at Dublin Castle. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) has pointed out that it would be impossible for almost every politician on the popular side to make his ordinary political speech if this clause is to be carried out in its present form. But that is exactly what the Government want; they want to prevent political speaking if they can. What the Government intended from the beginning, and what they intend now, is to obtain a measure of tyranny sufficient to enable them to put anybody they like in prison who objects to the maintenance of the Union. That being the case, I think there is really no use in making any further appeals to the Government to state their meaning with regard to the word "intimi-
  932
  dation." It is our duty to point out, if we can, to the English people what is the meaning of this clause. If a farmer meets a man who has taken a farm from which another man had been evicted and shakes his head at him, the man may go to the Resident Magistrate and say that the man had shaken his head at him, and at the next Petty Sessions the evidence of this single person that the shaking of the head was intended to put him in fear of his life would be sufficient to enable the Resident Magistrate, who has probably got his mind made up beforehand, and is one of the landlord class, to send the farmer to prison. Again, if a person of the class which is obnoxious to the population goes to Mass, and, instead of sitting in his own place, sits among people by whom he knows he is disliked, and if the people round about him get up and walk away from him, and sit and kneel in another part of the church, that, also, will be an act of intimidation. This man will be able to go to the Resident Magistrate and say he is put in fear of his life in consequence of these people getting up and passing him in church; and I have no doubt that the Resident Magistrate will send them all to prison. [A laugh,] The right hon. Gentleman opposite laughs at this; but I say that it is an illustration of what will take place, and is not a bit more preposterous than the other eases I have given. I think some more articulate reply than laughter should come from Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, although probably they prefer that mode of answering. Our point is this—that this is about the worst clause in the Bill, knowing how it will be worked. And if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland allows the word "intimidation" to remain on the clause, he will lay himself open to the charge that he desires the state of disturbance that will result rather than a state of peace. We are here to-night charging the Government with having that design and intention, and of course, if they carry out that intention by refusing this Amendment, the charge we make will be amply justified.
  COLONEL NOLAN: It strikes me that the Government are not pursuing a very conciliatory course in this matter. If their intention is that the word "intimidation" should mean

  933
  the same as "frightening" I think they ought to give way and accept the Amendment. It is very unsatisfactory, while an important question of this kind is being discussed, to see the Government represented by only two Law Officers and four of their supporters. It is rather a strange thing that these six individuals should be able to keep in a Bill words to which the whole Irish nation are opposed. I think, at any rate, that the Government should give way on this point. I have had some experience at ordinary Petty Sessions; and although hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench may not have a very large respect for those Courts, I say you are going to give them immense powers under this Bill. Now there is a class of cases, originating at fairs, which come continually before the Petty Session Courts, and up to the last five or six years the practice has been to bind the parties over to keep the peace; but now you are going to give the magistrates power to pass a sentence of six months' imprisonment. These matters will be judged in the same way as before—that is to say, the magistrates will take very little evidence. The manner of conducting business at fairs is not well understood by those who are not familiar with it. It is quite a common thing to see persons at a fair who look as if they were going to kill one another, and yet it is only their fashion of making a bargain. Under these circumstances, I think the Government ought to make a distinction with regard to the old rules under which the magistrates have been accustomed to bind people over to keep the peace. As my hon. Friend has said, the word "intimidation" is too elastic in itself, and, beyond that, it has been used in a very elastic manner; but you are now going to make such persons as I have referred to liable to six months' imprisonment. I wish there was something in this Bill to make the Law Officers of the Crown attend at Potty Sessions. I believe they have very little idea of what goes on there, and I have no doubt they suppose that the Courts are conducted in the same manner as the Superior Courts. But that is not the case at all. I say that when you are giving this tremendous power you should provide the magistrate with something definite and specific to go
  934
  upon, and I believe that the adoption of the word "threats," which my hon. Friend proposes to substitute for "intimidation," will save the Law Officers of the Crown a great deal of trouble in reviewing cases which will be dealt with under this Act. I hope, therefore, the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, although, having regard to the fact that they have done so little to meet the wishes of the Irish people, I have no great expectation of their doing so. It is not difficult to see why the Government refuse to accept any Amendment we propose; all they want is to have a red rag to flourish before the country during the Recess. They will say to the people of England—"We have made no concession to public opinion in Ireland; we have closured their Representatives four or five times a day; and we hope you will approve of what we have done." So far as the Representatives of the Irish are concerned, the feelings of those who send them to this House could not be treated with less consideration if we were ruled over by one of the Roman Emperors.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): The hon. Member who proposed this Amendment says that the word "threats" is equivalent to the word "intimidation," and that as the Irish Members prefer the former the Government ought to substitute it for the latter. That, however, would seem to be a suggestion that the Government should hand over their Bill to be redrafted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, a suggestion which, of course, the Government cannot accept. The hon. and gallant Member for North Gal-way (Colonel Nolan) has remarked upon the small attendance during this discussion. I do not wonder that there are but a few Members in the House, because since the last Division the time of the House has been occupied by a series of irrelevant questions. Five hon. Members have put questions to the Government. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) has asked whether this Act would have applied to certain persons who misbehaved themselves at Parliamentary elections? The hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) asks whether intimidation includes the case of a boy who whistles at a policeman? The hon.

  935
  Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) calls on me to say whether I think it right that the administration of the Act should be left in the hands of a gentleman who is alleged to have used some very strong language with reference to the Nationalists. But I would point out that hon. Members who have asked these questions have all left the House without waiting for any answer to be given, and that the questions are not such as lead in the slightest degree to the elucidation of the question before the Committee. With regard to the Amendment, I have only to repeat what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, that if this Amendment is intended in any way to limit the meaning of the word "intimidation" the Government could not accept it.
  MR. DILLON: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that Members on these Benches have not waited for replies to their questions; but I point out that this is the result of our having fallen into the habit of not expecting to get any answers from the Government. What we complain of is that the definition "includes" is no definition at all; that it simply stretches the meaning of the word without telling us what it does mean, and that the additional meaning given in the Definition Clause is of such a character that it leaves the Government open to punish anybody in Ireland—everyone who differs from the Government will probably fall under one or the other of the meanings given. It seems to us that a man who has built a house for you, which falls down afterwards, could be brought under this Bill. I contend that this clause, as now worded, places the liberty of every man in Ireland in the hands of the Executive, and that the only security we get is the assurance that the clause will be used with discretion; and we know by that that it will be used for political purposes. If a man goes into a shop and buys something, and tells a friend that what he bought there is bad, that will bring him under the clause; but, as I have said, by its means the Government will be able to punish every man in Ireland. We have endeavoured to argue this matter with the Government, but the only reply we have received is that the Government like the word "intimida-
  936
  tion," and that if they were to substitute the word "threats" it would mean the handing over of the Bill to be redrafted by Members on these Benches. That means nothing more than that they will stick to everything in the Bill. I want to point out to the Committee the gross and unjust way in which the people of Ireland are treated in this matter. I have always maintained that where there is a free Parliament, and the people are able to govern their own affairs, intimidation of the kind you are aiming at has existed, and always will exist, whenever the people have before it questions of interest. I maintain there never was a Bill of such a character as this driven through Committee so indecently by any Government; and if the promoters of this Bill are met with prolonged and angry opposition, it is entirely due to the heartless and unfeeling way in which they force these provisions through the House by means of an ignorant and mistaken majority. I do not believe there are 10 men. on the opposite Benches who have read the Bill from beginning to end; and, if that is so, can they wonder that we resist it on behalf of our people to the utmost of our power?
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. T. P. GILL: I beg, Sir, to support the Amendment. Such a change will not involve, on the part of the Government, any sacrifice as to the scope of the powers included in the clause, if the Government really honestly mean to limit the operation of the Act to the means that are defined in the Definition Clause. Now, I find in the Definition Clause that the word "includes" occurs three times, and the word "means" seven times amongst the paragraphs. We have this example—
  "The expression 'Lord Lieutenant' means the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or any Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland for the time being."
  Then, again, we have—
  "The expression 'aggravated crime of violence against a person' means an assault which causes actual bodily harm," &c.
  But when we come to the expression "intimidation" we find it set down in the clause—

  937
  "The expression 'intimidation' includes any words or acts intended and calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself,"
  and so on. If the Government, instead of the word "includes," would put in word "means," it would be limiting the clause to the offence specially defined, and would not be leaving a wide margin for the discretion of the Resident Magistrates as to the class of offence that they may deem intimidation when they come to work this Act. As to the discretion of the Resident Magistrates in this matter, when an hon. Friend of mine awhile ago was describing certain cases—for example, the boy who was punished for whistling in the street—I saw one or two hon. and learned Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite scoff at it as if it were an incredulous matter. I can quite understand their scoffing at it. I can quite understand the Solicitor General for England asking whether, in the case of that boy, there was a conviction or not. I do not know what happened in the case of the boy referred to; but there is a case here in which there is a conviction—a case in which a person summoned was sentenced to find sureties in £40, and to enter into his own recognizances, or in default to go to prison for two calendar months. His name was James M'Clusky, and he was summoned before Major Traill, the Resident Magistrate, who is rather notorious, and what was his offence? Why, it was that he, on several occasions, in the public streets of Armagh, had put out his tongue in a "threatening manner" at the Sub-Inspector of Police. This James M'Clusky, by putting out his tongue, threatened and succeeded in intimidating a gentleman who had at his hand a large force of Constabulary armed with rifles and bayonets and other weapons of war. The complainant, in course of his examination, said that this man was in the habit of intimidating him in the streets in this way; and the result was, as I have stated, that the man was sentenced to go to prison for two calendar months in default of finding sureties. This was a case in which a monstrous and ridiculous charge was made against a man as a matter of intimidation, and the Resident Magistrate who sentenced this young fellow to prison for two months in this absurd way will be one of the
  938
  gentlemen who will have the administration of this Bill intrusted to them. Then there is another case brought up, where the Resident Magistrate appeared to be of a more sensible and a less tyrannical frame of mind, and reprimanded the police for bringing up the defendant. It was the case of Martin Ryan, who was summoned in Westmeath for calling Patrick Welsh "a rogue, a robber, and a welsher," and for threatening to blow out his brains with a stone. That case was dismissed; but it is a matter in the discretion of the Resident Magistrates how they shall deal with these cases, and we see that it is possible for one of them, in a case so trivial that it should never have been brought before the magistrates, to sentence a man to two months' hard labour in default of finding sureties to be of good behaviour. An enormous number of these cases could be brought before the Committee; but I am sure the Government would continue to treat them with the contempt they have already manifested towards those which have been mentioned in the course of this debate. This discussion has gone on for some time, and I think we may venture to appeal to any impartial witness—to yourself, Sir, for example—as to whether the statement made from this quarter of the House of the case made out for an improvement of this definition of "intimidation" is not one which well deserves the attention of the Government, or well deserves the attention of any Party in the House to whom this argument might be addressed? I think, if this discussion may be deemed by anybody to have gone on at a length which in these days of curtailment of debate is unusual, that the fault lies with the Government, who will not answer one of the statements or one of the arguments made on this side of the House, but simply get up and tell us that we are trifling with the House, or are assuming to re-draft the Bill for the benefit of the Government; and the Government merely scoff at our statements, as if they were unfounded, instead of replying, and instead of making some endeavour to carry out, by the acceptance of a reasonable Amendment such as this, their first declared intention as to the method in which they intend the Act to be administered. Sir, I would recommend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who now represents the Go-

  939
  vernment (the Attorney General for Ireland) the suggestion I have made—namely, that in Clause 19 we should go so far—though no one will be able to say it is going very far—as to leave out the word "includes," so as not to leave a margin to the Resident Magistrates to take any cases such as that of a person putting out his tongue in a threatening manner, and to put in the word "means," which, goodness knows, is sufficiently wide in its construction. I would ask the Government whether they intend to use this clause and this definition of the word "intimidation," as against the action of landlords who do what the Laud Commission, through Judge M'Carthy, recently declared the landlords were in the habit of doing—namely, intimidating their tenants by means of eviction, and holding over their heads the species of terrorism that the Irish landlords are able to hold over the heads of their tenants—whether, I say, they intend to include acts of intimidation like that in the action they propose to take under this measure which they are now passing? I should like to have an answer to that question. Is it within their intention to do so, or do they only wish to bring charges of intimidation against the tenants? I would call your attention, Sir, to the fact that one of the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House stated to-night he considered to be of no importance is one which is moved by an hon. Friend of mine on this Bench, and which refers to that very portion of the definition of intimidation; and I hope that when we come to this Amendment you will consider it of sufficient importance to permit a discussion to take place upon it. It opens up a question which is a most important one—namely, the question of intimidation on the part of the landlords, which is a question that has not yet come before this Committee for discussion. I maintain it is intimidation of a far more serious character than anything which is done by the people in defence of their rights.
  MR. CHANCE: It is a curious thing that none of the many lawyers who obtained seats at the last General Election in the Tory interest have addressed the Committee in defence of a single word of this Bill, with the exception of hon. and learned and right hon. and learned Gentlemen who sit on
  940
  the Front Bench, and who are, therefore, more or less pecuniarily interested in the fate of the measure and the fate of the Government, which is bound up with it. I think it is a significant circumstance that, with so many lawyers in the House, every one of whom is burning to distinguish himself in the interests of the Government, and probably with a view to his own ultimate interest, we should not have had a single word from any of them in defence of this Bill. When people were talking very large through the country on the introduction of this measure, when they were speaking about agrarian crime in Ireland, about the atrocities of the tenantry cutting off cows' tails and so on, no doubt many of the Gentlemen to whom I refer did speak; but when we come to the details of the Bill they do not appear to take the slightest part in what is going on, except this—that they now and then come in for the purpose of intimidating us and to vote for the Motion, "That the Question be now put." It seems to me that this word "intimidation" in this clause cannot be justified even on grammatical grounds, and ought not to be retained. It seems that intimidation to be effectual requires that someone should be affected by it—that, to use a legal phrase, there should be a grantor and a grantee. You cannot be said to intimidate the world in general; you must intimidate somebody. When you look at the next few words you see that the intimidation is intimidation "of or towards," and I confess I do not know what that means. You cannot intimidate towards a person——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, in the observations he is now making, is anticipating an Amendment lower down on the Paper in his own name.
  MR. CHANCE: Well, Sir, I was simply saying this—that intimidation is an offence which requires to be absolutely complete. I do not know what was in the mind of the draftsman when he put down the words as we find them in the Bill, because lower down we see a number of acts described incompletely, and I do not see how intimidation can possibly be used in their regard. When we turn to the Definition Clause—Clause 19—I find a similar difficulty in understanding it, because I there see—

  941
  "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," &c.;
  and I must point out that it is quite a new departure to use the word "intimidate" in that manner. If you look at the Trades Union Act of 1875 you there find intimidation dealt with. In that Act there is an offence clearly defined, but there is no question of "using intimidation towards," and so forth. And if you look at the definition of what may be reasonably termed intimidation or force—take, for instance, intimidation or an assault that may be a constructive assault—you find that an act that is to be constructively an assault must be an act giving to the person towards whom it is used reasonable ground to believe that the person using it means to apply actual force; but in this Bill there is no such limit or safeguard. Under this Bill, if any person, even the fool of the parish, chooses to say that he is put in fear by an act which is perfectly innocent, it will be a criminal offence, and I must say that is absurdly unreasonable. You should not say it is an offence unless the act done is calculated to put in fear a person of reasonable mind and of sound common sense; but I understand why the Bill is framed in its present shape. Of course, most of these acts of so-called intimidation will be alleged against Nationalists in Ireland, and it is desired on the part of the landlord class to have the widest means of alleging acts against these people which can be construed by the Resident Magistrates into acts calculated to produce fear. The whole thing is utterly unreasonable. I suppose, however, it will be passed by the usual majority, who stalk in at the beck of that living danger signal, the First Lord of the Treasury, when he desires to put the closure on. I do not see that it is any use arguing the matter, since I have no one to argue with.
  DR. KENNY: I would like to point out to the Committee that it is not what the Government mean which will be taken into consideration in Ireland by the gentlemen who will have entrusted to them the administration of this measure when it becomes an Act of Parliament; but they will take into consideration what course is most acceptable
  942
  to the powers that be. It is necessary that it should be impressed upon the Government that they should have this clause framed in definite language—in language as precise as that of the English law. As has been frequently pointed out, not only are the gentlemen who will administer this measure removable at pleasure, but they are always filled with gratitude, and gratitude we know, in the Parliamentary acceptation of the phrase, is a lively expectation of favours to come. These President Magistrates are always looking forward to get some fresh expression of consideration and approval from the Government; and, as persons who find themselves in that situation always do, it will be found that they go far beyond what the Government wish them to do. They will inevitably go beyond the length of their tether. Under these circumstances, I ask the Government to say what they mean by "intimidation." If they mean what we mean by the word "threats," why do not they say so at once, and accept our Amendment? This word "threats" would go much better with the previous words of the section. "Wrongfully intimidated" seems to have a contradiction in it. If you put in the word "threats," instead of "intimidation," you will facilitate the passage of the Bill, and the Resident Magistrates will find themselves with a very necessary curb put upon them.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 168; Noes 111: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 173.) [9.50 P.M.]
  MR. CHANCE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out the words "or towards." I am glad to be able to announce to the Committee on this occasion that I speak by the leave and full concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I hope, therefore, that the discussion on the Amendment will be a short one. We have already passed without discussion the most serious points. We have decided that amongst the criminals who are enumerated in this section shall be found any person who, wrongfully and without legal authority, uses violence or intimidation; and now we come to the words "to or towards." I confess it puzzles me how we can use the words "to or towards any person or persons"

  943
  in reference to such an offence as intimidation. Intimidation is distinct from violence, and it is used here as something by which you produce an effect on the mind of someone. You cannot be said, therefore, to use it "towards" some one. People's minds do not reside outside them. To have intimidation you must produce an effect on the mind of some solitary individual; and, that being so, I cannot conceive what is the meaning of "intimidation towards." Intimidation is not like a shot gun, which you can fire off in the air. This is an example of the latitude which it is intended to give the Resident Magistrates—an example of the free hand you give them to enable them to put anyone they like into gaol. I hope the Government will not be unreasonable enough to insist upon the use of these words. In the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of 1875 you used the word "intimidation;" but you did not say "intimidation towards a person," as if intimidation was a weapon hold up and brandished. Perhaps it meant that though you may not intimidate a person himself, you may do something to some member of his family and thereby intimidate him; but that does not justify the use of words which are puerile; and, therefore, I trust the Government will leave them out.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, leave out "or towards."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Act of 1875, and he points out that it differs from the wording of the clause which we are now considering. That Act is liable to be evaded. If the hon. Gentleman were to read the debates which took place in this House in 1882 he would find it there stated by hon. Gentlemen who have had considerable experience in Ireland that though the section of the Act of 1875 to which he refers was a good one, so far as it went, it did not meet the difficulty in Ireland at that time. It does not meet the difficulty which exists now. The provision of that section, which forms, to some extent, the basis of this section of the
  944
  Bill we are now considering, is not sufficient to deal with every form of intimidation in Ireland which has existed since 1881, more or less extensively, down to the present time. The hon. Gentleman asks, what is the meaning of introducing these words? The meaning of introducing the words is, as I explained in the House hours ago, that intimidation might not be directed to the individual himself—-that is, that it might not be intimidation used by the person using it in the presence of the person against whom it is used—they might not be together—but it may be directed against a man through other channels, and by being directed through other channels may prevent that person from doing a great number of things which he has a legal right to do, by reason of this intimidation being brought to bear upon him. There might be discussion as to the best way of framing the clause to meet that point; but it has been considered before that the phrase we here use does meet the difficulty. It has been clearly shown that there are many cases where the condition of things would not have been reached if it had not been for the adoption of these words. Under the circumstances, the Government do not see their way to the acceptance of the hon. Member's Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: I understand that the case of the Government is a very short and simple one. They admit that "intimidation" is the production of an effect by one person upon the mind of another person, but they wish to punish intimidation, while they are unable to point out a single individual on whose mind this effect has been produced. I leave the Committee to judge of that position. I ask the Government if they have any other reason to advance for the retention of these words? If what I have stated is their admission it is a very grave one. It is that they mean that "intimidation in the air" is an illegal act, and that they wish to punish, by six months' imprisonment, people for doing acts which do not involve violence, and by which no single individual has been restricted in his action.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The next Amendment which is in my name is in line 30, after "persons," to insert

  945
  "specified." The point involved in this Amendment has already, in an indirect way, formed the subject of discussion. There is the example of a number of cases in which prosecutions wore instituted under the corresponding provisions of the Crimes Act. A number of parties were charged with intimidating persons unknown, and summonses were issued making a charge of intimidation, but without specifying the persons intimidated. It is needless to point out that that is a very unsatisfactory and improper course to take. In one of these cases an appeal was taken to the County Court Judge, and the County Court Judge decided that such a summons was bad in law, and refused to confirm the conviction of the magistrates, on the ground that the persons intimidated ought to have been stated. But in another case, where a number of appeals were made to the County Court Judge, where the same course had been taken by those issuing the summonses, the County Court Judge declined to take that view, and decided that the summonses were good in law. Whether or not such a course as that is good in law, the Bill ought to be made clear and precise on the point. I do not know what the intention of the Government is; but, at any rate, the matter should be here debated and clearly decided. I may give, as a sample of the improper way in which the clause, as framed, may work, this fact. An hon. Friend of mine went down to Westmeath and made a speech there. At that time there was a great deal of agitation in the country with reference to the question of the labourers of Ireland, and the action taken under the Labourers Act by the Poor Law Guardians. A favourite allegation of the landlords was that, however anxious they themselves might be to make concessions, the tenants were not disposed to accept them. Well, my hon. Friend, in making a speech in Westmeath, discussed this view of the matter, and urged the County Authorities to treat their labourers properly, and said that if they did not take a proper view of the situation and treat their labourers as they ought to be treated, there was a danger that the force of the agitation would be turned against themselves. For using these words he was brought up before two Resident Magistrates, charged with intimidating the farmers of Westmeath,
  946
  and those two magistrates sentenced him to two months' imprisonment, an imprisonment that was confirmed on appeal by the County Court Judge—an individual who had himself got at variance with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. Harrington) in local politics in the County of Kerry. I think that is a very unsatisfactory state of things, and we have reason to believe that a similar state of things will arise under this Act unless precautions are taken. A clause against intimidation, general in its character, may be abused by the Resident Magistrates. Therefore, when the Government are re-enacting a provision of this sort, we have a right to ask them to insert some safeguard against an improper use of the section.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, after "persons," insert "specified."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'specified' be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has himself stated, in the course of his observations, what must be in the recollection of the Committee—namely, that this subject has already been discussed at considerable length. The discussion took place on one of the Amendments on Wednesday, I think, on a previous portion of the clause. An Amendment was discussed on the same basis as that on which the hon. Gentleman is now discussing this proposal.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It was not on the same point.
  MR. HOLMES: Practically it was the same point. The very instances the hon. Member who moved the Amendment were then quoted.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But not on the same point.
  MR. HOLMES: That may be; but, as I say, the same instances were used. Our object in framing the clause as it stands is a very simple one. If intimidation is charged against certain persons, or against a certain class of persons, it may be utterly impossible to have it stated on the face of the summons what the names of the persons so intimidated are. Intimidation in Ireland is constantly being directed not against a particular individual who can be named, but against several individuals—a class

  947
  of individuals residing in a particular place or district; and we conceive that form of intimidation should be punished, and therefore it would be impossible to limit the clause as suggested. The hon. Member refers to action which was taken under a previous Act. It would be impossible for us to check the difficulties the hon. Member referred to, because they are not in our knowledge; but this I do know—that under the Act of 1882 proceedings were frequently taken, and taken with success, against persons who intimidated a number of individuals, none of whom could be named, or none of whom it was possible to name at the time. The Government must insist on retaining the clause as it is drawn for the reasons that we urged when the matter was discussed for three hours on Wednesday last. It is not necessary for me, neither do I intend to reiterate the arguments then used.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely mistaken the case of the previous Amendment to which he has referred; and I am surprised that, with his legal acumen, he should have attempted to debauch the Committee with his legal opinion in a sense contrary to the fact. What was the previous Amendment? Why, that you should compel the individuals intimidated to take out the summonses themselves. That is a very different thing to the point involved in this Amendment. It would be a reflection on the Chairman of Committees to suppose that he would allow a discussion to take place on an Amendment identical with one already disposed of. The object of the present Amendment is that when you take out a summons against a person for conspiracy, the person intimidated shall not be a person in the air, but a real individual. The Amendment really proceeds from the Conservative side of the House. The Conservative Party will have a great respect for Mr. Cross, now Lord Cross, especially as he is a Peer. What my hon. Friend asks for was inserted in the Act of 1875, because in that Act the persons complaining of intimidation were bound to nominate, so to speak, the individuals whose condnct they complained of. That Act said—
  "Any person who with the view of preventing any other person from doing or abstaining from doing."
  948
  [Interruption.] I do not complain. I rejoice at interruptions which we can understand, and can deal with in. fragment. If the hon. Gentleman will again favour me with his interruption I shall be delighted to deal with him. But he will not. The section of the Act I referred to goes on to say—
  "Uses violence to or intimidates such other person, or his wife or children,"
  thereby showing that these persons to be intimidated must be particular persons, or their wives or children. They must be intelligible, individual persons, such as John Smith, or W. H. Smith, or anyone else. That being so, so long as you are able to deal with them as individuals of flesh and blood, it is possible for a defendant to rebut the charges. The Judges in all these actions pro and con must depend, to a large extent, upon your proofs; but if you say you are "intimidated in the air," how is it possible that you can rebut the charges? If I am charged with intimidating a spirit—I will not say the spirit of any hon. Gentleman opposite—but of a person unknown—I cannot bring up that person unknown to prove that the charge is false, or I cannot cross-examine that person in proof of my position. But if I am accused of intimidating John Smith—I will not mention anybody else, I will stick to John Smith—I could bring up John Smith, and could show whether he was a person intimidated or not. That is a material point, and I will put that case to the hon. and learned Solicitor General, who always attends intelligently to what takes place in Committee, and does not give that perfunctory attention to what has taken place which some hon. Members upon that Bench do. If you are accused of intimidating A or B, you can bring up evidence to disprove that accusation; but if you are accused of intimidating Julius Cæsar, or some person who is dead, or some person who is unknown, how is it possible for you to defend yourself? I maintain that it is in that view that this Amendment ought to be pressed. Suppose I am accused of intimidating a person unknown, how can I prove a negative? But you look about for certain classes of persons, and you say this class of individuals has been intimidated. I say, produce one specimen. You do nothing

  949
  of the kind; and I do put it to the Committee whether that is a reasonable and a proper Code that is to exist for all time? I myself have intimidated people in speeches that I have made over and over again, and I am happy to say that I have brought them in that way into courses which are right. Lord Salisbury endeavours to intimidate the Conservative Members, and successfully, to go against that which they believe to be a right and just course. We say to the people of Ireland, if you grab land you are doing wrong, and certain regrettable consequences will follow. You say that is intimidating a person unknown; and, being the master of legions, you say it is wrong, and it shall be punished. I ask you again to re-clothe yourselves in your Conservative mind as it existed in Anno Domini 1875, when you had no Liberal Unionists with you, when you were purely Conservative—before, so to speak, the primrose had been crossed by the orchid. I do ask in these circumstances, if simply on the ground of defence, that you should allow us to defend ourselves. I have defended a good many men, and most of them unsuccessfully, I must confess, because most of the juries have been "rigged." It may have been my fault. I do beseech the Committee to allow us to have some opportunity of defending ourselves; but if we are to be accused of intimidating persons who are unknown, I say it will be wholly impossible to have any line of defence under the circumstances. I therefore do hope that the Government will say that the Conservative Act of 1875, which was the intelligence and the wisdom of Parliament of that day, and which is not yet out of date, shall guide them on the present occasion. And I do hope that the Government will see their way either to accept this Amendment, or to effect its object in some way more suitable to themselves.
  MR. HUNTER: I regret that the Attorney General is not here, as he might infuse a little common sense into the arguments from the other side of the House. If the Attorney General for Ireland had resisted the addition of this word on the ground that it was not necessary I could have understood him, though I could hardly agree with him; but when he contends that an intimidation which intimidates nobody is to be a crime and a mis-
  950
  demeanour punishable with six months' imprisonment with hard labour, it is, to my mind, maintaining a very reductio ad absurdum of law. No one is injured. If anyone is injured he can be specified. No one is intimidated. If anyone is intimidated he can be named. It is intimidation in the abstract, and intimidation that intimidates nobody, no human being being injured. No human being being produced, that is what you call applying English law to Ireland. I was glad to hear, a few moments ago, that the last Amendment was passed on the ground that English law was not strong enough for Ireland, and yet previously we were told that the Government were relying on the application of English law to Ireland. This is not the law of England or of Ireland, or of any rational country at all, and I hope hon. Members will go to a Division on the Amendment.
  MR. CLANCY: I rise to reply to the remarks of the Irish Attorney General. I may say, as many were not here a while ago, that some evidence was given of the working of the Intimidation Clause of the Act of 1882. We then instanced several cases of a most extraordinary character, and no answer whatever was attempted to be given to these illustrations. The illustrations which we have given have been taken from the reports in the public newspapers of Ireland, including the Tory papers of Dublin—the organs of Dublin Castle. They are perfectly impartial newspaper reports. This collection of cases has been before the Irish public for several years, and so far as I know no effective criticism has been directed against their truth or accuracy. These reports show that the most preposterous use—the most extravagant use—has been made of the Intimidation Clause of the Act of 1882, persons being prosecuted who really committed no offence at all; and now we have, for the first time, a defence suggested—namely, that these cases probably do not exist at all. If that is the only answer that can be given I am afraid it is a very insufficient one.
  MR. T. P. GILL: I think this is one of the most important Amendments that has yet been moved. It touches a very vital principle in this Bill; and that the Government should sit down so quietly, and not merely refuse to accept the Amendment, but refuse to give a reason

  951
  for not accepting it, and say that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should include this Amendment in what he considers trivial and not worthy of attention, is, I think, a very remarkable fact, and a very striking illustration of the spirit in which the Government are regarding the attempt we are making to modify the severity of this Bill. It is a principle new to English law that a person is to be charged with a specific offence when a charge of violence or intimidation towards another person is made, and when the person alleged to be intimidated or to be injured is not to be named in the summons. The effect of the clause as it stands, and if unamended, will be that persona and prisoners charged with intimidation under this Act will be absolutely deprived of anything like a tangible defence; because if you charge a man with intimidation, and do not mention the person whom he is alleged to have intimidated, I really do not see how a man can defend himself, and the framing of the clause in this fashion through the rejection of this Amendment, at any rate, simply means that the Government deliberately undertake to strike away from the persons to be charged with intimidation under this Act their only possible and proper method of defence. I really think that this is one of the Amendments which, if this Bill is to be anything like an honest adherence to the pretensions that the Government put forward in support of their Bill, should meet with acceptance from the other side of the House. We should like to hear from any English Law Officer who is familiar with instances which are occurring every day in England, and whose mind is not demoralized with familiarity with the freedom with which Irish magistrates and Judges and Law Officers deal with the law which they have to administer in Ireland—I should like to ask one of those Gentlemen to get up and either persuade his Colleagues on the Tory Benches to accept the Amendment, or else give us good reason why he thinks this very simple, but, at the same time, very important Amendment is to be rejected without a word of explanation.
  MR. O'HEA: I quite agree with the observations of my hon. Friend, and I consider with him that this is a very important Amendment.
  952
  I would go further, and would say that it would be more candid on the part of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they object to the retention of this word "intimidation," and to be ready to substitute for it a more intelligible and less drastic word.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is speaking to an Amendment which has been disposed of.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: There is something to be said with regard to the word proposed to be inserted, which I have had occasion to say before. We have often come to turning points in these debates. Everyone fancies he sees a turning point, and I fancy I see a turning point between the punishment of bonâ fide intimidation practised on individuals, and the condemnation which may be put by Resident Magistrates on public speeches or published articles in newspapers. I do think that this is not too much to ask that persons should be specified, either the individuals or those classes that are intimidated. I base my argument in this way. I think it would be impossible for the Government to prove their case, if they do not allege that some person or class of persons were intimidated. I suppose it is only a waste of time, as usual, to try and impress these facts on the Government. To my mind the position of the Government is logically clear enough; they want, or affect to want, to punish in Ireland, not merely criminals by act, but also criminals by word—that inconvenient class of persons who may stand up on public platforms and denounce individuals to their possible hurt. I quite agree that those who direct their speeches at individuals, either to intimidate or threaten them, ought to be punished; but, at the same time, I think that the Government ought consistently with that to safeguard the right of free speech and the right of free writing in the public Press. Unless this Amendment is made, the Government, through their underlings, the Resident Magistrates, will have the right to bring up any newspaper writer or public speaker—in fact, any man who may venture to think aloud in Ireland—and to allege that he has been guilty of intimidation, while they need not specify the intimidation.
  MR. JOHN MORLET: I hope the hon. Member for

  953
  Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) will not suspect me of being intimidated by Lord Salisbury, or of having the least desire to dissent from the view the hon. Member has expressed of his sense of the importance of the insertion of the word "specify." But I hold that in the stand which the Government have, wisely or unwisely, taken—unwisely, as I think—it is not profitably taking up the time of the Committee to dwell any further upon this Amendment. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should withdraw this proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Mr. Courtney, I desire to submit to the Government and the Committee the reasonableness of making a slight verbal alteration in the first words of the 26th line. As the clause at present runs—
  "Any person who shall wrongfully, and without legal authority, use violence or intimidation to, or towards any person or persons with the view to cause any person or persons either to do," &c.
  The alteration I suggest is that instead of the last "any" there should be inserted the word "such," so that it will read "with the view to cause such person or persons to do," &c. It may appear that that is open to the objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland some time ago in regard to another Amendment—namely, that it is restrictive of the clause as it is at present drafted. It is clear that the present wording of the clause is open to very serious objection. The idea of a man intimidating one person with a view to cause another person to do something or other is a little too far fetched. I dare say the Government will be prepared to adopt the Amendment; if so, I will not dwell upon it at any length. But what I want to point out is this—that at present, as the clause stands, you may have A summoned for intimidating B with the view not to cause B to do a thing, but with the view of causing C to induce D to do a thing. With a telescopic clause of this kind, it is impossible to say what a man may not be charged with in reference to the effect of his action on three or four parties of whose very existence he may not have had any more information than the man in the moon. I beg to move
  954
  the substitution of the word "such" for "any."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 26, omit the first "any," and insert "such."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. O'Connor) will see we cannot accept the Amendment, if he reflects that the intimidation directed against a wife to induce the husband not to do that which he has a right to do would be by this Amendment excluded from the purview of this clause.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: In that case action could be taken under the Bill against the intimidator.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Moreover, the definition of the word "intimidation" would cover the case the right hon. Gentleman puts. The word "intimidation" includes
  "any words or acts intended or 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."
  I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) ought really to master his own Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: It is rather a hopeless task to move Amendment after Amendment; but I do ask the Government to consider the Amendment, No. 76, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty). I think that if they do they will see that the words my hon. Friend proposes to insert will not materially weaken the powers given by this section. All the Amendment proposes to do is, that if the act which a party has a legal right to do is an act involving the violation of a contract or honourable obligation, that then persons shall have the right of animadversion.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 27, after "have," insert "without violation of a contract or breach of honourable obligation."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): The proposed words are entirely unnecessary, and really throw doubt on the words of the clause as they already stand.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman can have considered the Amendment carefully. The meaning of the Amendment is this—that if the act which it is sought to prevent by intimidation is of such a character that it would itself involve a breach of contract or breach of honourable obligation the Resident Magistrate is not to have the power of giving six months' imprisonment because the party who was injured by the breach of contract or honourable obligation chooses to animadvert upon the breach of contract in a manner which the Resident Magistrate chooses to construe into intimidation. That is the effect of the Amendment, and I really do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General understands it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Mr. Courtney, Amendment, No. 82, is an Amendment which is designed to protect persons in Ireland who are simply exercising their legal rights. It is greatly to be apprehended that if the clause passes in its present shape Resident Magistrates will use it in a very improper manner, in order to force people to do what there is no obligation on them to do, but the omission of which they will construe into acts of intimidation. It raises in an indirect manner the question of exclusive dealing, on which we have never yet expressly had a decision of the Committee. Now, Sir, what I say is this—that as long as a man keeps within his legal rights no punishment ought to be inflicted upon him, no matter what Resident Magistrates may think about his action. If I, Sir, being a shopkeeper, and not being a licensed victualler or anyone under a legal obligation to supply certain goods, exercise my legal right and choose not to sell my goods to a particular person, I ought to be at liberty to take that course. Again, if I am a buyer at a fair, and choose not to buy of some person who has done something I dislike, surely I am only exercising my legal right if I do not buy from such a man, and ought not to
  956
  be punished. The Government professes to be anxious to prevent intimidation. This is an Amendment to prevent intimidation by Resident Magistrates and other gentlemen occupying official positions in Ireland. It is an Amendment designed to preserve their legal rights to that vast body of the Queen's subjects in Ireland who take views upon political matters which are, no doubt, very offensive to Government officials in Ireland, but which, notwithstanding, it is perfectly competent for them to take. These persons ought not to be at the mercy of officious constables and Resident Magistrates who may choose to construe very innocent acts as acts of intimidation. I hope the Government, who say there is no freedom in Ireland, and that this Act is brought in to secure liberty for the people, will accept this Amendment, which is designed to preserve to a large class of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland the enjoyment of their legal rights.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 34, after "doing," insert—"Provided nothing herein contained shall be construed to oblige or compel anybody to do any act which he has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which he has a legal right to do."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): Mr. Courtney, I confess I have difficulty in understanding the meaning of the words which are proposed by the hon. Member. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill which does compel anyone to do anything whatever; certainly there is nothing to
  "compel anybody to do any act which he has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which he has a legal right to do."
  MR. CHANCE: I cannot understand at all the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. The ground upon which the Government cannot condescend to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Maurice Healy) is that there is nothing in this section which compels anyone to do or not to do anything within his legal rights. A few moments ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to what

  957
  took place in 1882; but he need not have gone back so far—it would have been enough had he remembered what took place a few days ago. I recollect distinctly that when we were discussing the 1st sub-section of this clause the case of the Government was that they created no crime whatever by the clause; and yet, later on, the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) moved words limiting the clause, by declaring that nothing shall be punishable except that which is already punishable by law. Under those circumstances, it must be assumed that the Government did intend to alter the law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) had difficulty in understanding to what this Amendment would apply. I will give him an in stance; suppose you went along a road whistling, it would apply to that. I know you have a perfect right to whistle on the road, yet we know that a boy of 12 years was committed to gaol for whistling at a policeman. I believe his sentence was afterwards commuted on technical grounds; but, at any rate, he was convicted by a Resident Magistrate, or two Resident Magistrates, of the very grave offence of whistling in the public streets. This Amendment would act as an indication to the Resident Magistrates that, although the Government did intend to give them enormous powers, they did not intend that the powers should be used for the purpose of punishing people for doing what they are perfectly entitled to do at present. This Amendment cannot possibly do any harm if the Government are anxious that the Act should be properly and fairly administered.
  DR. KENNY: The Government now seek to get rid of an Amendment by saying they do not understand it, and they are sure hon. Members opposite do not understand it. That is a very easy form of argument; but I think it has been proved all through these debates that we do understand what we are aiming at. Our object is not to give power to irresponsible tribunals of such a character as will enable them to play ducks and drakes with justice in Ireland. This Amendment is, in our opinion, exceedingly important, for it aims at preventing a grossly improper use of the powers given by this clause to Resident Magistrates. Under this clause, as it stands, there is no doubt
  958
  in the world that the tenant who refuses to buy from his landlord at some exorbitant rate may be brought up and sentenced by the two gentlemen to whom the power of adjudicating will be entrusted; he may be charged with intimidation or exclusive dealing, because he has refused to do something which his landlord may desire him to do. We are strongly of opinion that we ought to press this Amendment to a Division and I certainly think our constituents would be very discontented if we did not divide upon this occasion. I hope the Government will come to some reasonable understanding with us upon this very proper proposal of ours.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is very refreshing that we can propose Amendments which the Government do not understand. We have hitherto been met by every form of excuse for the non-acceptance of our Amendments; but this is the first time we have had the reason assigned that the Government cannot understand what we propose. We put an intelligent form of words on the Paper, and the Government simply say, "We do not understand it." The Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) the other night said that an Amendment did not make the words of the Act any clearer: it seems that you are reduced to two replies; the first is, that the Amendment does not make the Act any clearer; and, secondly, that the Government do not understand what is proposed. This is a very convenient way of voting away the liberties of a people; but I submit that when you are dealing with a tribunal composed of Resident Magistrates the Government ought readily to accept Amendments providing that any acts legal in themselves should not be punishable. That is all this Amendment provides. In the section it is provided that a person who refuses to deal with another shall be penalized. The Government have been stumping the country with the idea that people have been deprived of the necessaries of life by reason of what they call "exclusive dealing;" but, under this Bill, persons will be compelled to buy from people as well as to sell to them. I presume that this Amendment deals with that particular direction of affairs. If a man has cows to sell he shall not be able to compel people to buy his cows. I do think that, under the circumstances, the Go-

  959
  vernment might provide a little illumination to their own minds by reading the words of the Amendment. We have reached the most extraordinary pass that the Government propose to get rid of Amendments by reason of the languor, or pretended languor, of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who illustrates his languor by his posture at the present moment, or by the mental languor of the Attorney General for Ireland, who says he will not apply his mind to the understanding of our Amendments. I will not refer to the First Lord of the Treasury, because he understands everything that is said and done in this House; it would be unfair to apply any ordinary rules to the right hon. Gentleman. But I will take as the apex of intelligence on legal points the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), and ask him whether there is anything in this Amendment which the Government can really object to? This is a proposal that nothing in this clause shall be construed to oblige any person to do any act which he has a legal right to abstain from doing. For instance, if land-grabbers can allege they have been prevented from selling their cows by particular people, these people will be sentenced for refusing to buy the cows, because the Resident Magistrates, knowing nothing about the matter, will side with the land-grabbers. I will recall to the English mind a very old maxim, "Do unto others as you would be done by." Would Englishmen propose to apply this section to themselves; if this is so good for Ireland why do you not apply it to England; why do you not provide that the requirements of this section shall be applied to your own dealings in this country? You will not do that. Something may be said in favour of making it penal to refuse to sell to individuals; but, at any rate, why should the refusal to buy be made a penal offence? The Government say they desire nothing that they would not make the law in England. If that is so, I should imagine that when an Amendment is proposed providing that no act legal in itself shall be construed by the Resident Magistrates to be illegal the Government would have jumped at it, if we can conceive the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland indulging in any such activity. The Attorney General for Ireland says he cannot understand the Amendment. I would like to
  960
  ask the right hon. and learned Gentle" man, if he were in Court, would it be fair to meet an argument by saying he could not understand it? He must understand the Amendment; he is paid to understand it; and I submit that; there is nothing clearer to the ordinary mind than to say that if a particular act is legal in itself it shall not be rendered illegal by any construction of law. To refuse to buy from any individual is a perfectly legal proceeding. The Government, only a half-an-hour ago, set forth by adopting a system of exclusive dealing. They said, that there are certain Amendments they will exclusively deal with, and that there are other Amendments they will not deal with at all; they really mean to Boycott certain Amendments, and allow me to say that is what we complain about. If you say it is fair, we say, from our point of view, our proceedings are equally fair. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury—who is the chief of the tribe of exclusive dealers—I ask him to say whether he does not consider it is a perfectly legal thing to refuse to buy from persons of opposite politics? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will say that such a thing is perfectly legitimate. Under those circumstances, I ask the Government to reconsider their decision. It is really prolonging debate for the Government to treat us as they are treating us at the present time. Besides, the present system of dealing with Amendments is not a wise one; because all the Amendments they are now passing by can be put down as new clauses. If you treat our Amendments with contempt now, we shall simply be compelled to bring them forward as new clauses upon Report. I trust the Government will see their way to act in a logical manner in regard to the reasonable Amendments we propose.
  MR. CLANCY: If there is anything more likely to occur than another, it is that a hunt in a certain district will be stopped, and there is nothing more certain than that farmers have a perfect right to prevent hunting over land in their possession. The Attorney General for Ireland will not deny that the holder and occupier of land has a perfect right to prevent people from hunting over his ground. Now, what occurred in the County of Waterford in December, 1883? On the

  961
  22nd of that month, 34 tenant farmers and labourers were prosecuted for interfering with the meat of the Curraghmore Hunt. The majority wore respectable men, but that did not prevent their being prosecuted. The evidence against them simply established the fact that they shouted, but committed no violence, or used any threats. Well, for merely assembling together and shouting, some of these men were sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour, others were sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, and an application to have the imprisonment increased to a month for the purpose of having an appeal, was actually refused by the Resident Magistrates. On this occasion a rather remarkable incident occurred, and one which is extremely suggestive, and which shows what will happen under the administration of Acts like this. On the table were found printed forms of committal regularly filled up and only awaiting the magistrate's signature, the name of the convicted, and the amount of punishment awarded. It was quite evident the forms were filled up before the conclusion of the case, and immediately after the witnesses for the prosecution had given their evidence. I should like to know what answer the Attorney General for Ireland has for a case like this; he cannot deny it occurred. If he does deny it, I refer him to the public newspapers of the time, December, 1883; he will find the case reported in the Tory Papers as well as in the Nationalist papers. If he denies that this thing has happened, will he deny that it may happen under the present Act, and will he deny that it will be a reasonable thing to prevent such a case recurring. It is perfectly preposterous to imagine that a farmer in Ireland has not a perfect right to prevent any landlord he chooses from hunting over his land; and under this Act, unless this Amendment is adopted, you will have plenty of prosecutions in Ireland of farmers obnoxious to particular landlords for preventing them hunting. All I can say is, that I do not think it will conduce to the peace and good order of Ireland to have a clause like this, capable of being worked in such a fashion. If the Bill of the Government is to produce disorder, their wishes will speedily be realized.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I think that after the speeches which
  962
  have been addressed to the Committee recently, the Government can scarcely plead obtuseness in regard to this Amendment. I think its scope is clear; it is a protection against an ill use of the clause as it stands. We have had the possible manner in which the clause can be applied fairly illustrated by the case of hunting, and I can endorse everything said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) in regard to the manner in which this clause will be made to apply in order to compel people to allow hunting to take place over their lands. Unless this Amendment be accepted, the Act will be reduced to an absurdity. The police, in the tyrannous exercise of their discretion, will commit such acts as will reduce the Act of Parliament to an absurdity. The police, I know, will be tempted to compel one labourer to speak to another. We have had the case of a boy being brought up for whistling at a policeman; is it not possible to conceive the case of a man being brought up for not speaking to his neighbour? The police may compel shopkeepers to sell to people whom they have no desire to trade with; they may compel a baker to sell his last loaf of bread to an obnoxious individual, although that loaf may be required for his own family. [Laughter.] It is quite possible that these things may be done in Ireland; it is a very easy matter to laugh at these things, but I can assure hon. Members that they are very likely to occur. After the illustrations we have given, the Government ought to accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Courtney, I beg to propose the omission of the word "riot," in line 35. No doubt, hon. Members of the Committee understand by "riot" some very serious occurrence. The ordinary idea is that a riot means the breaking of heads and great danger to property; but in point of law it is nothing of the kind; I will give a simple illustration. If two or three persons, one of them believing he has a right to get possession of a farm from which he has been evicted, join together and use violent language or violent gestures and take possession of the farm, that in law is a riot. Now, the Attorney General for Ireland, I am sure, will not contradict that. It is most important when we are

  963
  dealing with an agrarian question about which there are a great many disputes, that we should not put it in the hands of Resident Magistrates, as is contemplated by this sub-section. If half-a-dozen people, as constantly happens, take possession of a farm, I do not think it ought to be within the power of a Resident Magistrate to punish the people by sentencing them to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. I am sure that is never intended. I do not know whether it is intended by the Government, but I do not think it is intended by the Committee. The Resident Magistrates of Ireland ought not to be entrusted with such power, and, therefore, I move this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, leave out "riot or."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'riot or' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I object to the Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think that the Amendment is a perfectly reasonable one. The riots of which the Government complain are generally riots which take place at evictions, and a riot taking place on such an occasion would be quite covered by the 1st sub-section dealing with a conspiracy, or by the subhead of Sub-section 2 of the clause which deals with assaults committed on officers of the law in administration of the law.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Mr. Courtney, I now rise to move the omission of the words "or unlawful assembly." I think, no doubt, I shall be met with the usual stock argument that these words were included in the Act of 1882. That was so; but we must look at these words in connection with Clause 7 of this Bill, which will carry the matter infinitely further than was ever contemplated in the Act of 1882. In the discussion on the Act of 1882 it was promised by the then Government that that Act should never be put in force for the purpose of putting a stop to political agitation of any kind, and as a matter of fact, it was never so used; and I am informed that there never was a prosecution under this particular section to which we are now referring. In this Bill hon. Members
  964
  will see, on referring to Clause 7, that it will be possible for the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim and prohibit at any time any association which he believes to be dangerous, and having so declared the association to be a dangerous one, then any meeting of any kind or assembly in connection with that association would become an unlawful meeting, and under the clause now before the Committee, it will be possible for any person taking part in any such meeting, or practically any part in the combination alluded to in Clause 7, will become liable to be imprisoned with hard labour for six months. That appears to me to be a very dangerous power to give to Resident Magistrates. You are practically giving power to the Lord Lieutenant to put an end to every kind of political agitation, or to any combination of an agrarian character. However, I do not propose now to enter fully into a discussion of Clause 7; but I mention it for the purpose of showing that we must scrutinize very closely the section now under consideration. What I want to understand from the Government, in the first place, is what they intend by the words, "unlawful assembly;" and, secondly, what they intend by "take part in any riot or unlawful assembly." It is quite true that there are certain dicta of the Judges which would carry "unlawful assembly" very far, and, I believe, it has been said by some people that the mere assembling together for an unlawful purpose is an unlawful assembly; but, so far as I can make out, that is not the view of the best lawyers on the subject, and that unlawful assembly has a much more, a very much more restricted sense. In the Criminal Code an unlawful assembly is defined as an assembly of three or more persons to carry out any common purpose in such a manner as to disturb the peace or to provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously. What I wish to ascertain from the Attorney General for Ireland, or from the Attorney General for England, is that whether in that restricted sense they understand the words "unlawful assembly," or whether they understand them in the much vaguer and wider sense? What is the moaning of the words "take part in?" I have consulted able lawyers on this question, and many of them believe that the words "take

  965
  part in" mean merely being present at an assembly. Well, is that the sense in which the Government intend these words to be construed? Do they really mean that persons merely being present at such meetings will be liable to be imprisoned for six months with hard labour? On this point there have been various decisions given in the Law Courts, and although I do not find that any person has ever been indicted for taking part in an unlawful assembly—the indictments generally run for tumultuous and unlawful assembly, which is a very different thing. A very important case arose out of the Gravesend election in 1869, and in that case it was laid down that any persons who were present at a tumultuous and riotous meeting, but did not actually take part in the riot, although they were immediately concerned with persons who did take part in it, were not guilty of any offence. The Court even held that the person who actually employed a number of persons who took part in the riot, was not guilty of any offence. Do the Government mean to convey that persons present at a meeting are to be liable to be indicted? These words are apparently unknown to the law at present, certainly they have never been included in any indictment. At present, I do not wish to do more than raise the question as to what is the real meaning of those words. As they stand, they are words of the very vaguest description, and are not such as can safely be interpreted by that very ignorant class of persons—namely, the Resident Magistrates. At present, there is always the protection of a jury and the higher Judges of the land in such cases, whereas, now, what is proposed is to relegate these cases to inferior Courts. I beg to move the omission of the words.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 35 and 36, leave out, "unlawful assembly."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'unlawful assembly' stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I may reassure the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the first part of his remarks, by reminding him of a fact he will not dispute—namely,
  966
  that he himself voted for a precisely similar clause in 1882. I cannot agree that this is not a legitimate argument to use; however, I will not refer to the action of previous Parliaments, but will deal with this sub-section on its merits. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of a fact with which, I think, he can hardly be acquainted, though the Attorney General for Ireland has just alluded to it—namely, that last Wednesday the Committee decided to extend this particular sub-section, not merely to proclaimed districts, but to unproclaimed districts. The hon. Member for Cork told us just now that he did not at all believe that the section was good, but that if it were adopted it should be adopted impartially. If the thing is bad in itself it ought to be restricted to the narrowest possible limits. If the Committee decided that it should be extended to the whole of Ireland, whether the whole of Ireland was proclaimed or not, I take it it was the fact that the whole of the Committee were of opinion that the provision is in itself a good one. What we know of recent Irish history is ample ground for thinking that that opinion is correct. Why do hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway desire the provision to be extended to the whole of Ireland? The reason probably is that they think the Government would not proclaim Ulster, where there are likely to be unlawful meetings which should be dealt with summarily.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: No; riots.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member included the whole of the section. The argument was that there might be unlawful assemblies, and that these should be dealt with summarily. Undoubtedly, what we know of judicial proceedings in Ireland confirms that view. What was it that constantly happened at the trials which were held after the Belfast riots? Why, it happened that the Judge frequently instructed the jury that those who were brought up for trial were not guilty of riot, but were guilty of taking part in an unlawful assembly; and it was on that instruction from the Judge that the jury found thorn guilty. If that course had not been adopted by the Judge these people could not have been found guilty of unlawful assembly. They could have been found guilty of riot; but they would not have been open to

  967
  summary jurisdiction. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that in these cases accused persons ought to have the protection of a jury. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be aware that a Royal Commission sat on the Belfast riots and reported on this very question; and, according to the Report of that Royal Commission, one of the things recommended for the prevention of these riots—which are a disgrace to Ireland, and I here speak of Ireland as a whole—was the adoption of a summary mode of dealing with the offenders. If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is carried it would be impossible to punish rioters in the North of Ireland by summary conviction. I have not rested my case on the precedent of the Act of 1882, but I have rested myself on facts which are notorious. I have shown the Committee that the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into this question of rioting in the North of Ireland conclusively proves that if this Amendment is carried a blow will be struck against public peace and order in that part of the country; and for this reason, if for no other, I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has asked one or two questions upon legal points which I think he ought not to have asked. He asked what taking part in an assembly was? I would reply to his question that taking part in an assembly is a question of fact, and means, not being present in the neighbourhood of such an assembly, but taking part in it and voting at it. But I am not capable of entering into legal discussions with the right hon. Gentleman upon imaginary cases. Taking part in an assembly, I say, is a question of fact which has consequently to be decided by the tribunals of the country, and the tribunals which exist in Ireland are perfectly competent to determine such cases. The reasons I have given, drawn entirely from the North of Ireland, are quite sufficient, I think, to convince the Committee that whatsoever else we do, we should seriously weaken the strength of the clause if we were to accept this Amendment.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I would press Her Majesty's Government to answer this question as to what the meaning of taking part in an assembly is? Does it mean simply vot-
  968
  ing at a meeting? The right hon. Gentleman himself has drawn a distinction between taking part in a meeting and taking an "active" part in one.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have done nothing of the kind. I have drawn no distinction; but have said that taking part in an unlawful assembly means taking an active part.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Then I ask what taking an active part in a meeting is? This is an important question, and I desire to know who are to be held the persons taking an active part in an unlawful assembly—is it those who are present at the meeting; is it those who summon the meeting; or those who vote at the meeting? Does it include these? The right hon. Gentleman says that it does not mean those who are in the neighbourhood of the meeting and are not taking part in it.
  MR. COLERIDGE: I observe there is another question which has been asked and has not yet been answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It is a most important question, and it is whether or not the Government intend to limit by this Act the definition of "unlawful assembly?" ["No, No!"] If they do not, I presume the "unlawful assembly" which is intended to be meant by this Act is unlawful assembly as known to Common Law in England, and not as known or as defined by this Act, or as known under the heading of an assembly of a dangerous association. I think the Committee can hardly be aware of the extremely vague terms in which "unlawful assembly" under the Common Law of England has been described. I will simply quote one case to show how enormously wide the description of "unlawful assembly," as it has been laid down, is. I will mention the well-known case of the Peterloo massacre, where the Judge laid down and defined the law as to unlawful assemblies in these words—
  "All persons assembled to sow sedition and bringing into contempt the Constitution are in an unlawful assembly. All persons assembled in furtherance of this object are unlawfully assembled."
  I may mention, also, the fact that persons have been convicted under indictments in this country framed in the following language:—

  969
  "For unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously meeting for the purpose of exciting discontent and disaffection, and inciting the subjects of the Queen to hatred and contempt of the Government and Constitution of this Realm as by law established."
  [Ministerial cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen cheer that language; but I say that the only thing that has prevented that law from being grossly abused in this country has been the right of trial by jury, and if this law is to be laid down as applicable to Ireland, and if Resident Magistrates are to administer the law as laid down in those terms, I should like to ask whether there is a Resident Magistrate in Ireland who will not consider every political meeting of every sort or kind in Ireland an ''unlawful assembly?"
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I think I can describe to the right hon. Gentleman what is meant by taking an active part in a meeting. He first attempted to draw a distinction between taking a part and taking an "active" part. I think I heard him ask whether the reporters who come to attend a meeting or an unlawful assembly would be considered by the Resident Magistrate as taking part in that unlawful assembly and would come under that Act? Would the right hon. Gentleman opposite do me the favour to say whether those people would come under the Act or not? He is silent; but the Resident Magistrates—I am speaking from their recorded action—are not silent upon the point. We have a case where two reporters were sent to prison for four months for attending a meeting in the ordinary course of their duty, just as a French journalist or English journalist might be sent to prison at any moment for doing so.
  MR. DILLON: I should like to ask upon what kind of evidence is a person to be convicted? As I have always understood the law in this country, or the practice of this country, people are exceedingly jealous of any punishment on taking part in meetings; and above all things it is required that there should be the fullest proof that a meeting did take place, and that the people refused to disperse when called upon to do so, and that there was violence exercised. I have had a wide experience in these matters, and in many instances I have attended the places where the meetings were proclaimed and forbidden to be
  970
  held, and there can be no doubt that the more fact of my presence at those places, in numberless instances, would have been hold by the police to constitute in the case of the people gathered there taking active part in an unlawful assembly. In Rosslea, for instance, no meeting took place, and there was not the slightest intention to hold any meeting. The police, however, and the Government reporter stated that a meeting did take place, and the police dispersed some people in the streets. Though I say no meeting was held, and though it was not proposed to hold a public meeting, nevertheless, the police charged the people and scattered them, and there cannot be the slightest doubt that if this section of this Bill had been in force at that time, the people in the streets of Rosslea would have been liable to be brought up and convicted for taking part in an "unlawful assembly" on the evidence of the very policeman who apprehended and batoned them in the streets. If I had been examined under such circumstances my oath would have been to the effect that no meeting took place; but that would not have availed anything, because the people had gathered into the town, and the magistrates would have held that an "unlawful assembly" had taken place, and every one of those thousands of people would have been liable to imprisonment under this clause. A practice of the most scandalous and mischievous character as to meetings of this kind exists in Ireland. What was done in this case? Why a Proclamation was issued on the Saturday subsequent to the publication of the Saturday newspapers, prohibiting the meeting which it had been announced 10 days before was to be held. Under those circumstances, how was it possible that people could be prevented from attending? That kind of thing has been done for 40 years. In the days of the Clontraf meeting, the same thing was done, and unquestionably with the deliberate intent of producing bloodshed. A meeting was proclaimed on Saturday, and messengers had to be on the road all Saturday night in order to do what they could to prevent people from attending. What I have described is the usual practice in Ireland; for no matter what notice the Executive gets of the meeting, they generally proclaim it on a Saturday morning too late for the newspapers,

  971
  and consequently the people do not know of it. It is a fact, then, that even where really and truly an assembly which could not be described as a meeting has taken place, parties may be charged with having taken part in an unlawful assembly when they are seen walking about the town in which a meeting has been proclaimed; and that may be tried by the magistrates, who, probably, may have been the very persons who instructed the police to charge the people.
  MR. A. COHEN: I would remind the Committee that during the discussion on the Crimes Prevention Act my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was asked what meaning he gave to "unlawful assembly," and he said that an unlawful assembly, in point of fact, was "an inchoate riot—a meeting called together with the intention of using force. That was an ordinary question which the magistrate was bound to decide." I agree with that opinion; and I am only supporting the Amendment because I want the Government to state what they mean by the words "unlawful assembly." When a magistrate has the power of summary conviction for an offence, the offence ought to be clearly established by Statute, or ought to be so defined that it will be clearly known to the law. I submit that these words "unlawful assembly" have not a legal meaning which is perfectly clear and defined; and if Her Majesty's Government will place in the Definition Clause a definition of "unlawful assembly" similar to that contained in the Draft Code proposed by the late Sir John Holker, who was Attorney General in one of the late Conservative Governments, I, for my part, will not oppose any word in this clause. I am, however, opposed to these words "unlawful assembly," because Her Majesty's Government have not condescended to tell us distinctly what they mean by them. Every lawyer will agree with me that when "unlawful assembly" has been described as an inchoate riot by such an authority it is necessary that some limitation should be observed for the protection of those who may be in the locality. Some of Her Majesty's Judges, in connection with riots, have pronounced dicta which extend the meaning of "unlawful assembly." It is quite true that the hon. and learned Gentleman
  972
  the Attorney General described those dicta as fossil dicta the other day; but it must be remembered that dicta of this kind are respected in every judicial Court and cited. But in face of these dicta it really cannot be said that there is a definite and clearly-ascertained meaning to be given to the words "unlawful assembly." Now, what objection can there be on the part of Her Majesty's Government to giving these words the same definition which is contained in the Draft Code that I have referred to? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says—"See what the consequences will be." Well, I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman at all. He spoke about the Belfast riots. Why, if the definition given in the Draft Code had been adopted, undoubtedly those persons who took part in the Belfast riots would have been found guilty of taking part in an "unlawful assembly." If the definition I suggest were adopted by Her Majesty's Government, all persons found guilty under such circumstances would be found guilty in accordance with the definition contained in the Draft Code. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite desires to keep the law as vague and obscure as possible, in order to enable the Resident Magistrates to imprison whom they please, it is well for them not to adopt any definition; but I cannot conceive that, for a moment, to be the intention of the Government. It would be undignified, and would be discreditable to the wisdom of the Legislature, and to the ability and intelligence of the Government as statesmen. I, therefore, appeal to Her Majesty's Government to say whether it is our duty, or whether it is not our duty, to give the Resident Magistrates a clear idea of the offences with which they have to deal. If it is true that there is some obscurity as to the meaning of the words "unlawful assembly," ought we not to clear that obscurity away and give a proper definition? The only thing I ask Her Majesty's Government to do is to put in the Definition Clause some definition of those words, and then I think there can be no objection to the clause. It seems to me that it is our duty to object to these words until we know for certain that there will be some clear definition given to them. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite adopts

  973
  the definition that was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, when he was conducting a similar measure through this House. If the right hon. Gentleman adopts that definition, then lot it be put in the Definition Clause. If he does not adopt it, then really he ought to tell us what meaning the Government attach to these words. The only object I have in view is, if possible, to take cave that the offences contained in this clause are clearly defined, so that the Resident Magistrates may know over what offences they have jurisdiction, and so that innocent persons may not be kept in gaol for long periods.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down seemed to me, during a portion of his observations, to have forgotten that the Amendment moved and supported by the right hon. Gentleman opposite is an Amend merit to omit the words "unlawful assembly." Now, we decline to accede to this Amendment, because we believe that it would materially injure the clause to omit these words. What is an unlawful assembly? A great deal has been stated about words of art, but, so far as I understand words of art, they are to be found in the words "unlawful assembly." These words are to be found again and again in Statutes, and in none of these Statutes is there a definition of the words. I am asked what, then, is the meaning of them? The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has stated what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) when a similar question was put to him in 1882. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the words meant "an inchoate riot." I think that, in a short space, we could not have a better definition than that. But the right hon. Gentleman used one word or two afterwards which did not very well harmonize with our view of the law; but, at any rate, those words which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted we agree with. But why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman—for he was a Member of the House at the time—get up and ask the right hon. Gentleman to define the words "unlawful assembly" in his Bill? There is no such definition in the Act of 1882. The hon. and
  974
  learned Gentleman did not make that speech then, because he was at that time supporting the Government. He takes a different attitude now, because he is in opposition. The Attorney General for England may consider the adoption of some definition; but, whether he takes one view or another, the words "unlawful assembly" are perfectly intelligible to every lawyer in every Assize town in Ireland. The expression "unlawful assembly" is a term of art. It has never been suggested that every collection of people in a town is an "unlawful assembly." The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks as though "unlawful assembly" is an interchangeable term with "public meeting;" but that is not so. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that this particular provision in the Act of 1882 was never put in force.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I said no summary conviction had taken place under it.
  MR. HOLMES: There were summary convictions obtained, both for riots and unlawful assemblies; but they were unlawful assemblies in the ordinary way. As I have already said, those words were a term of art. We can no more attempt to define "lawful assembly" than we can attempt to define "riot." We adopt the term in its usual sense, and in no other way. We ask the Committee to adhere to the words which appear to us to be most important to the North, the South, and, in fact, to every other part of Ireland.
  MR. CHANCE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, of course, has to defend the Bill; and in this case, he objects to the Amendment because, as he says, the words "unlawful assembly" are a term of art, and he very wisely adds, have a definite meaning in English Law. He went on to give us the definite meaning that those words have in English Law. He told us that they meant ''an inchoate riot," or a meeting called for the purpose of riot, and that he acquiesced in that opinion. He objected, then, to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House arguing the question as "if unlawful assembly were a term interchangeable with public meeting." Now, allow me to refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the terms of his own Bill. Let me remind him that, under Clause 6, the Lord Lieutenant of

  975
  Ireland, if he deems it to be true that dangerous associations exist in any part of Ireland, may issue a Proclamation merely stating the fact, and putting certain clauses in force, and then under the next clause of the Bill, he is able to use proclamations to show what he considers to be an unlawful association. Having begun upon that foundation he may declare any association to be a dangerous association, and—
  "From and after the date of such order, and during the continuance thereof, every assembly or meeting of such association, or of the members of it as such members in the specified district shall be an unlawful assembly."
  Now, Sir, I would draw the attention of the Committee to this fact—that the only Proclamation that will come before Parliament is a blind one, stating that, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland an unlawful association exists, and under the next clause he would have perfect power, without any control being exercised by this House, to put in force the Act against every meeting of such unlawful association as an unlawful assembly. Well, Sir, in the face of that, is it possible to say that in this Act the term "unlawful assembly" means a meeting called for the purpose of riot? The very moment the Proclamation is issued by the Lord Lieutenant, and before any meetings are called, whatever meetings may in the future be held, are already declared unlawful. Is it possible to argue that the Lord Lieutenant, by some extraordinary pro-science, will know a week before a meeting takes place that that meeting will be an inchoate riot? I ask, is it possible that the Committee will allow such an enormous change to be introduced into the law? Up to the present we have had a clear and distinct definition of unlawful assembly in England. You are giving very great despotic power, and, therefore, I trust the Committee will pause before they allow such a definition of unlawful assembly to pass.
  MR. CLANCY: I desire to correct a statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) who introduced this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said there were no prosecutions for political meetings under the Crimes Act of 1882. As a matter of fact, there were several prosecutions under the Act of
  976
  1882, not merely for riots, but for unlawful meetings, and it is very curions that one of the prosecutions was against two gentlemen of the Press who had gone to a meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings. A Resident Magistrate named Mr. Perry, a gentleman who is still in the Commission of the Peace, ordered the representatives of the Press off the ground where the meeting was to be held. They protested against the order, saying that they were present in the performance of a duty to the public, and that, in the interest of the public and of the people present, they had a right to be there. The two reporters were summoned and convicted for being present on the occasion. Curiously enough, the Presiding Magistrate on that occasion is one of the very gentlemen who will have the carrying out of the present Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) instanced the case of the Belfast riots; but the ease of those riots do not bear out the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He intimated that unless the Belfast rioters could not have been tried on a charge of unlawful assembly, they could not have been convicted. But this section is not only to bring people guilty of unlawful assembly to justice, but it is, also, to transfer the trial of such persons from juries to Resident Magistrates. Now, in the case of the Belfast riots, it is well known—it was said by the Chief Secretary himself—that justice was obtained, for the jury convicted every one of the rioters. It seems to me that that is an argument in favour of the Amendment, and not against it. An hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) who spoke from these Benches a while ago, expressed a doubt as to the intentions of the Government; he said he did not believe the Government intended to give power to Resident Magistrates to ferret out everybody who might be disposed to take possession of farms from which they had been evicted, and send them to prison. If he has any doubts on the subject we have none. We know exactly what they are about to do do; we know what they want to do under this Act. They want to put down political agitation altogether in Ireland, and the readiest means of doing that is to entrust the administration of this section to tools of

  977
  their own, to men who will be completely under their thumb, and who, experience has shown, are capable of being bribed, and will be bribed by special promotion for special services under this Act.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The difficulty in this case has arisen from the use of words which bear a double meaning. The words "unlawful assembly," as I understand them, have a very different meaning in the popular mind from what they have technically or in indictments. If you once admit that a riot ought to be punished summarily, it would be absurd to exclude the offence which has been described as "inchoate riot." If the Government mean that the words must be taken in their technical sense, why do they not so express it in their Act? They say there is no necessity for a definition, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has told us that no lawyers are capable of giving any meaning to the words unlawful assembly. Permit me to remind the Government that this Act will not be administered by lawyers, but by Resident Magistrates; and though it is quite right to say that no lawyer would think for a moment of regarding a public meeting as an unlawful assembly, there is the gravest danger that two Resident Magistrates, unlearned in the law, may take that unreasonable course. And allow me to say also that the definitions of unlawful assembly in the legal text books are sufficiently ambiguous to warrant Resident Magistrates taking that extraordinary course. In Roscoe's Criminal Practice, one of the best legal text books, I find that—
  "Any meeting whatsoever of great numbers of people as would endanger the public peace and raise fears and jealousies amongst the Queen's subjects seems properly called an unlawful assembly."
  There is hardly a meeting you could hold in Ireland on any subject which two Resident Magistrates would not hold to be a meeting calculated to ''raise fears and jealousies amongst the Queen's subjects." I suppose the Irish landlords are not yet excluded from the category of the Queen's subjects; and I suppose, a great number of meetings held in the course of the land agitation were eminently calculated to raise fears and jealousies amongst that class of Her Majesty's subjects. Still it would be a
  978
  monstrous thing that because meetings were calculated to put terror into landlords' hearts, so far as their rack-rents were concerned, all persons taking part in those meetings should be liable to be sent to gaol for six months with hard labour. The same writer, citing the language of Mr. Justice Bailey, says—
  "All persons assembling to sow sedition and bring into contempt the Constitution is an unlawful assembly."
  There have been some thousands of meetings held by Nationalists in Ireland during the past half-dozen years; and I venture to say there was not a single one out of the thousands at which language was not used which two Resident Magistrates would not consider was calculated "to sow sedition and bring into contempt the Constitution." That being so, it is really too much to expect us to believe that when this vague language is used in this Act of Parliament, there is no danger that two Resident Magistrates will not misconstrue it in the manner I have mentioned. Then the writer goes on to say—
  "If the meeting held is from its general appearances and all the surrounding circumstances, calculated to excite terror, alarm and consternation, it is criminal and unlawful."
  Surely, when you have a well-known text-writer describing the offence of unlawful assembly in language so susceptible of misconstruction as that, it is really monstrous to say there is no necessity for a definition of the words. I have only another word to say, and that is in regard to the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). He referred to the words "take part in." Hitherto, in order to prove the offence of unlawful assembly, it was necessary to show that the person charged took an active part in whatever was illegal in the assembly. It was not sufficient to show that a man was present; it was necessary to show that he was there concurring in whatever the illegality of the meeting was, and taking part in the illegality. Unless you clearly define the meaning of the words taking part in, there is not the slightest doubt that two Resident Magistrates in Ireland will consider that to be present is to take part in an unlawful assembly. Upon both the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, we are entitled

  979
  to hear something more from the Government.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I merely wish to say a word in explanation. When I stated a short time ago that no prosecution took plane under a similar clause to this in the Act of 1882, I did so on what I believed very good authority—namely, two or three hon. Members sitting below the Gangway. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Clancy) has quoted three or four cases which took place, but it seems to me they took place under another clause of the Act of 1882—namely, the clause empowering the Lord Lieutenant to suppress meetings which he believed to be dangerous to the public peace. Therefore, I might be quite right in saying that no prosecution took place under the clause of the Act of 1882 dealing with unlawful assemblies. One of the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) was certainly very significant as bearing on the other point I referred to—namely, as to the meaning of the words "taking part in." It appears that two reporters were actually prosecuted, and sent to prison for attending to take a report of the proceedings of a meeting. If that is to be taken as the meaning of the clause now under consideration—if reporters who are present for the purpose of taking a report are to be sent to prison with hard labour, I must say, to me this seems a very harsh measure. If the Government will undertake to give a definition of unlawful meeting in the terms of the statement made by the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), I shall be quite content, and shall not divide the Committee; but if they are not prepared to give any such definition, I think the Committee will do wisely to divide.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 263 Noes 145: Majority 118.—(Div. List, No. 174.) [12.15 A. M.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In consequence of the understanding arrived at to-day, I beg now to move that you, Sir, do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. [Interruption.] I wish the right hon. Member opposite would not shake his hoary locks at me in that way. As I understand, it was arranged by all sections of the House that, in order to prevent a sitting of
  980
  the House to-morrow, we should agree to-night to take those discussions which would otherwise come on to-morrow. I must say I arrived at that determination with great reluctance. If we should meet to-morrow, well and good. We should commence the discussion of those subjects on which we are interested in the afternoon, if we had an Afternoon Sitting, but we should not finish the debate, and we should have to go on with it again afterwards, because I do not see how it would be possible for us to discuss the question, which it is proposed to raise, at an Afternoon Sitting. We should have to meet again in the evening. We should be kept here until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, we should all lose our trains to-morrow night, and should come down here after dinner, and go on as I say until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. It is understood in a proposal emanating not from this, but from the other side of the House—from the Government themselves—that we shall agree to report Progress at an early hour. I may be entirely mistaken in thinking that this is an early hour (1.30 A.M.), and if so I withdraw the expression. But as I understand it, the Government gave an undertaking that at half-past 12 o'clock, the Committee should agree to report Progress. I put it to every Gentleman who has not been present during our debates to-night, whether we have not made substantial progress with the Bill. I put it to those hon. Gentlemen who have not been here to-night, and who now see the amount of work which has been got through in their absence, whether we have not made wonderful progress? They have got nearly the whole clause, or, at any rate, as far as line 36. In order to show that the remainder of the clause will take a long time to discuss, I may point out that the clause lays it down that it shall be unlawful for a person to retake possession of any house or land from which he has been ejected within 12 months' of the writ of ejectment; but in the Bill of 1882, as originally drafted, the period was only six months. Well, Mr. Gibson, now Lord Ashbourne, in 1882, moved to extend the period from six months to nine months, and he did so in the absence of the Irish Members who were suspended. Now, however, the Government propose to extend that period from nine months to 12 months. If

  981
  we have to meet to-morrow, well, we must meet to-morrow. Nobody will enjoy a meeting to-morrow more than I shall myself; but it seems to me that in view of the Officers of the House, including Mr. Speaker, it is extremely desirable that we should prevent, if possible, another day's debate. In mercy to the Officers of the House I now beg to move that you, Sir, do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was any understanding that we should report Progress at this hour. For the private convenience of hon. Members, believing it to be the desire of the House generally, we agreed that the adjournment might take place this evening if possible, instead of to-morrow; but I intimated that I thought it only reasonable that this clause should be disposed of to-night; but I do not desire to press hon. Members to carry on subsequent discussions in any way disagreeable to them. I understood it to be their wish that we should complete the Business to-night, so as to render it unnecessary to meet to-morrow. I, however, consider it imperative that we should make some distinct progress. I think the progress we have made tonight has been sufficient to show that with a little more consideration the Committee will be able to dispose of the whole of this clause this evening. I hope the hon. and learned Member will consent to withdraw his Motion, and will allow the Committee to dispose of the very few questions that now remain to be decided.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government has a right to demand some substantial progress to the clause this evening; but I think the right hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying, or in assuming, that the Government have not already made very substantial progress; and all I can say is that if they compare the amount of progress made to-night with the amount of progress made every other night since this Bill came into Com-
  982
  mittee, they will find that the progress to-night will boar a most favourable contrast with the progress of other nights. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad that statement receives the assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then I take it that they quite agree with me in the statement that the First Lord of the Treasury has succeeded in the purpose for which he set out this evening—namely, of making substantial progress in the clauses of this Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not know whether hon. Gentleman opposite, who seem inclined to interrupt, have done us the honour to attend here during the whole of the evening. I think the large majority of them were not in their places during the dinner hour this evening. Let me point out to them—and to the Committee generally—that to-night we have got through a whole sub-section and a portion of another sub-section. [Interruption.] If I am met with this interruption all I can say is this, that hon. Gentlemen will find that on another occasion we shall not be willing to enter into any kind of contract. We shall insist on being listened to with patience and courtesy; or, if not, we will see if those who give an example of discourtesy and impatience can possibly get the better of us. I say we have disposed of a whole sub-section containing some of the most complicated and delicate and, as we think, most oppressive portions of this Bill. ["No, no!"] Well, I should like the First Lord of the Treasury to point to a single instance in reference not only to this Coercion Bill, but any Coercion Bill in which Parliament has ever been engaged, in which so much progress has been made in a single evening. Let me point out a misstatement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He seems to think that in agreeing to an adjournment this evening, instead of to-morrow, he has been merely yielding to an appeal made from this quarter of the House. But that is not the fact. We agreed to the arrangement because we thought it convenient to the right hon. Gentleman and to his Followers and to the Committee generally. So far as we are concerned, we are quite willing that the House should not adjourn to-night, but that it should meet again to-morrow. In point of fact, I may say that in assenting to the adjournment to-night we did so at the sacrifice of what we considered

  983
  our rights, and at a sacrifice, to a large extent, of our feelings; because we have a strong desire—and I suppose many sections of the House have a similarly strong desire—to discuss some other subjects besides the Coercion Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, from his view of public duties and from his view of the importance of the Coercion Bill, has brought us to such a position that no opportunity has been left to us for independent discussion, or for the discussion of any other topic whatever, no matter how small or how largo it may be. Everyone who is acquainted with the House knows that the Motion for Adjournment for a vacation is always seized by Members for bringing before the attention of the Committee generally those topics which they are precluded from discussing at every other period of the Session. Well, we are anxious to take advantage of this opportunity and bring before the attention of the country—and especially before the attention of our own country—certain matters connected with the administration of the government in Ireland. I understand, also, that several Members who represent Scotch constituencies, and who have been precluded from discussing questions of great importance to those constituents, are anxious to take advantage of the Adjournment in order to bring those matters before the attention of Parliament and their country. I suppose there is scarcely a section of this House—with the exception of the Party opposite—who are not anxious to raise a subject which they regard as of importance, and which they have been precluded from debating at all previous periods of the Session. That being the feeling on this side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman would regard it as a concession from him to us, that we should have an opportunity of discussing the present measure, or, perhaps, a concession from us to him, that we should prevent the opportunity we so earnestly desire of discussing these matters which are of interest to us. The right hon. Gentleman should act in the spirit of give and take. We have surrendered to him the opportunity of discussing matters of great importance to our people—that is, of discussing them at a time when those matters can be properly discussed and brought before the notice of the public, at the same
  984
  time, we ask him to give us an opportunity of taking those discussions before the small hours of the morning, when discussion really becomes farcical. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should have made such a proposal as that we should give him the whole of the clause. He knows that part of the clause is Sub-section 4, and deals with the re enactment of the Whiteboy Acts. [Cries of "No, no!" and "That is to be withdrawn."] I am glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to withdraw that part of his Bill at the Report stage; but if he looks at the 5th sub-section which he has not withdrawn, he will find that it raises some questions that we must insist upon having discussed. Under the circumstances, I must say that, seeing the concession we have made to the right hon. Gentleman this evening, and seeing the amount of progress we have made not only in what we have passed, but in the cumber of Divisions we have avoided, and in having foregone our right to full discussion on the matters we wish to bring forward, I think the right hon. Gentleman might very reasonably now assent to reporting Progress. There is a matter of great interest to the whole House generally—namely, the appointment of the Committee into the Army and Navy Expenditure, and that is to be discussed to-night. The composition of this Committee is a matter of great importance. [Cries of "Question!"] If hon. Members opposite will have patience with me, I will show that I am perfectly in Order. I am showing the importance of the Business that is awaiting discussion. I am showing the right hon. Gentleman that there are many persons deeply interested in these matters, and that they may desire to discuss thorn at full length. I sympathize with those hon. Members in their view, and, indeed, I desire to help them in their discussion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps the Government will allow me to say that I think they are somewhat under a misapprehension as to their powers of getting through the whole of this clause to-night. As I read the Rules, they cannot put the clôture on this clause, except when some Amendment has been previously carried. Now, if a Motion to report Progress is moved, I do not think the Government would be in

  985
  order, in view of the ruling that has been given, to put the whole of the clause. The best way, I think, to bring matters to an issue is to go to the marrow of the powers of the Government. It is no use talking of sentiment; but let us go at once to the root of these powers. That being so, I would impress upon the Government the desirability of considering whether we could not agree to some terms to-night without further imposition of those Rules of Olôture. The Government will remember that in the Act of 1882, when this clause was under discussion, a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite were in the bosoms of their constituencies, and had not been born to Parliamentary life. At the time of which I am speaking, several nights were devoted to the discussion of this clause, which did not possess many of the objectionable trimmings which are now attached to it. If it took six or eight nights to discuss it in its naked character, how many more ought it not to take now? The Conspiracy section, we must remember, gives to Resident Magistrates the powers which hitherto have only been given to juries, and there are two or three of those powers yet remaining to be discussed. They are most important questions, and how, I ask, can they be disposed of at this late hour of the night? [Noise and interruption.] Unless intelligent Gentlemen opposite will abstain from making noises, it is impossible to carry on what really amounts to a legal argument. Hon. Gentlemen get excited at this hour. I do not know why it is. We do not object to what I may call—[Cries of "Order!"]—I am giving a reason why the Government should not press this matter to any further length tonight; but hon. Gentlemen come in to sit in this House, because it is the most pleasant part of the building to sit in, and instead of listening to what is going on, they make noises that are really intolerable. [Cries of "Order!"] I say, that to insist upon continuing the discussion at this late hour of the night is not fair. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand what is going on. [Cries of "Order!"] I am not saying that in an adverse spirit, but am putting it in what I conceive to be a most reasonable way. I think right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite
  986
  could reasonably concur in the Motion for Progress on the understanding that it was not we who initiated it. It was not we who initiated the proposal to report Progress at an early period of the evening. It came, I assert, without fear of contradiction, from Her Majesty's Government, and from them alone. [Cries of "No!"] What occurred came through the "usual channels," and as the communications that wore made were of a private nature, we are always averse to declaring them in the House. But I state the fact that the proposal that the House should adjourn to-night came from Her Majesty's Government. ["No, no!"] I am stating what I am conscious of, and of which I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite are not. I say this proposal proceeded from Her Majesty's Government. ["No, no!"] I hope hon. Members will allow me to finish without contradiction. I say that the proposal that we should adjourn tonight, instead of to-morrow night, emanated not from this side of the House, but from that. ["No, no!"] I hope Her Majesty's Government will not press us for details; but if they do, we will state the facts, sorry though I should be to have to do so. I say that it was a communication which came from the other side of the House, from the Government Benches and from a Member of Her Majesty's Government, which induced us to assent to the proposal. [An hon. MEMBER: When?] To-day, at Question time. I will put it in this way—a proposal came from a Member of Her Majesty's Government, who is classified as "one of the usual channels," that we should agree not to take discussion to-morrow, but should allow the Adjournment to be taken today. We said we agreed to that, with this limitation—provided that there was an understanding that you will agree to report Progress at 11 o'clock. That was met by saying—"We cannot agree to report Progress at 11 o'clock; but we think that it would be reasonable to report Progress about 12.30." Well, we waited until 12.30 before moving to report Progress on the distinct understanding that that would prevent us from meeting to-morrow. If we are to meet to-morrow, let it be at 4 o'clock. ["No, no!"] They will not agree to anything. Lot us adjourn until tomorrow, until 4 or 4.30, but do not let

  987
  us meet at 2, in order to take a discussion which will be talked out at 7 o'clock, and which will necessitate our meeting again at 9 o'clock. Let us meet at 4 o'clock, and discuss the matter in a regular way. If the Government elect to go on to-night, let it not be with the idea of getting this clause passed. Let them discharge that idea from their minds altogether. They may make progress with the Amendments; but I beseech hon. Gentlemen to purge their minds from any idea of getting the whole clause to-night. I speak as an expert in this matter.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to know if we are to adjourn to-night, or to meet to-morrow? The hon. Member for Ross-shire (Dr. McDonald) rose to bring a matter before the House the other day, when the clôture was moved, and that question we are still anxious to bring before the House. We want to have the question of the manner in which the Crofters Act is administered discussed by the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not necessary for me to repeat the proposal which was made. The proposal to adjourn the House to-night came to me from the other side of the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: From whom? Mention the name.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I say what I believe to be true. A representation was made to me, and I assented to it on the terms that I have stated in the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are, I believe, in the habit of accepting statements that I make in my place in this House. An hon. Member asks me if time will be allowed for discussing certain questions that he desires to raise. I say again, if it is the desire of the House to meet to-morrow, I shall make no difficulty whatever in moving the Adjournment until to-morrow. I wish to meet the wishes of the House on this matter, but I certainly feel that I am entitled to ask that the Committee should make reasonable progress tonight.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have not the least desire to throw any doubt upon the right hon. Gentleman's account of what happened to-night; but the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that it is absolutely impossible to get this clause tonight, if on account of nothing else but
  988
  the 5th sub-section. ["No, no!"] Well, if hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble to look at Sub-section 5, apart from all other matters, they will perceive that it contains much that needs very great improvement, and that it will take a very long time to discuss after we have got through the intervening Amendments. Clearly it is the feeling of the House that we should not meet to-morrow; but as we shall not meet tomorrow, I think the right hon. Gentleman will consider it reasonable that we should not adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess without any opportunity being given to us for some of those discussions which always take place on a Motion for Adjournment. [Mr. W, H. SMITH: Hear, hear!] I am glad the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that statement. That being the case, and it being impossible to take the whole clause, would it not be more reasonable now.—[Interruption.]—If hon. Gentlemen think they are going to get the clause to-night I can assure them that they are hoping for a physical and moral impossibility. Would it not be more reasonable, I say again, to accede to the Motion to report Progress, and have the discussion on the Motion for Adjournment, which always takes place when that Motion is made, to-night instead of to-morrow afternoon?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am really vary sorry not to be able to accept the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, which I am sure was intended to be conciliatory; but I think I am not unreasonable in asking that further progress should be made with this Bill. The Government intend to postpone Subsection 4, and when we reach Sub-section 5, I do not think it will be necessary to discuss it at very great length, at any rate, to such a length that the Committee would be prevented from coming to any conclusion upon it. At all events, we have gone so far that I think we ought to make some effort on the eve of the holidays to complete at least as much of our work as will satisfy the country. [Laughter.] I say at least so much of our work as will satisfy the country that we are discharging our duty as legislators.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: As I asked a Question at the commencement of the sitting of the House, and as there seems to be some difference of opinion as to the terms in which the pro-

  989
  posal for Adjournment was made, I, perhaps, may be allowed to state what took place. Under ordinary circumstances, I should not do so, as it was a private communication; but still, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), which is perfectly correct so far as it goes, and after the statement of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), it is only right that the Committee should know what actually took place. I was sitting in my place this afternoon when I was asked to go out and speak to the Patronage Secretary for the Treasury. He said to me he believed there was a desire—for the sake I believe of the officials of the House—that the Adjournment should take place to-night. He ask me whether I thought Gentlemen on this side of the House would assent to it. I said that they probably had certain observations to make on the Motion for Adjournment; but that if that Motion were made at a reasonable hour, I thought it possible that they would assent. I came back and spoke to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and they suggested 11 o'clock. I said that that was rather early, under the circumstances, and I further said—"Suppose we say about 12 o'clock." I then went out and spoke to the Patronage Secretary for the Treasury, who seemed to think 12 rather early, and suggested 12.30. I said there was very little difference between us, and therefore we would say between 12 o'clock and 12.30. It was in deference to the wishes of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Benches and their Supporters that I asked the question. Certainly I am bound to say—when I am challenged in this way—that the proposal did come through the ordinary channels of communication.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: A distinct statement has been made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). This involves the good faith of the Government.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise to Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman says this involves the good faith of the Government. I say it does no such thing.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is not a point of Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of Order; but it is usual to allow any Member of the House to give an explanation.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to recall to the Committee the statement I made when the Question was asked of me at half-past 5 o'clock. I then stated distinctly the conditions upon which I should be prepared to move the Adjournment of the House. I do not call in question any impressions which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may have entertained; but I am bound by what I say in the House. I am sure it will be for the convenience of Parliament that only such engagements as are made by a Minister in the House should be the only engagements recognized and adhered to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think that when a Member of the Government comes to us and says—"Will you, in the interest of the officers of the House, agree to so and so?" and we say "Yes," faith should be kept with us. We, personally, are really foregoing a great deal. We are foregoing a discussion to-morrow upon the imprisonment of Father Keller, a matter of vital importance to us; and we are also foregoing a discussion as regards Lord Ashbourne sitting in the Court of Appeal. I am very glad that the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Akers-Douglas) is now in his place. I have found him invariably courteous, and anxious to deal with his opponents in a most considerate manner; but I must say I knew nothing of this proposal until it was conveyed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); and when it was so conveyed, I said—"We will not agree to give you the Adjournment to-night, unless you agree to move to report Progress early." It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) said—"We must see what progress is made;" but there is nothing inconsistent in that with the facts. I maintain that if the usual channels of communication are to be poisoned at their source, and you cannot rely on private communications made by the Members of one Party to the Members of another Party, you might as well give up alto-

  991
  gether all the decencies and amenities of Parliament. [Ironical cheers.] I am not proud of them. I do not care a jot for them. we do not care what you do with your own. But I maintain that you must play a game according to the rules of the game. If in playing the game, you send one of your men to us with a particular proposal, and we accept it, that proposal, good or bad, ought to be respected just as you would respect a flag of trace. We shall hear from the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Akers-Douglas) whether we have misunderstood the message conveyed to us. Certainly, we agreed to forego a sitting to-morrow out of consideration for the Officers of the House. We thought that, by sitting a bit late to-night, we could obtain the explanation we wanted, and thus save the Officers of the House coming down to-morrow simply for the Adjournment. At the time this agreement, or disagreement, was made, there was not a single word said about getting the clause to-night.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: When I answered the Question at the commencement of the Sitting I distinctly said that was the condition.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In the language of the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), the right hon. Gentleman's words have gone to the printer. What we understood the First Lord of the Treasury to convoy was, that he hoped the clause would be passed to-night in the regular order of discussion. But surely, Sir, when we have given up the entire belly of the clause—if I may use that expression—the Intimidation Section, which took three or four nights' discussion, if it did not take a week's, in 1882, you ought to call that fair discussion. The Government have got numbers on their side, and I have no doubt we shall be ousted out of what we consider to be an honourable understanding, and the result will be, you will discuss this matter for some time. There will be no satisfaction; you will not get the clause which is the main object of the Government; you will meet to-morrow, and bring down the Speaker, his clerks, and the entire staff of 50 or 60 men; -while, perhaps, the Gentlemen who are now howling us down will take the 2 o'clock train to the country.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS): As a misunderstanding appears to have arisen in this matter, perhaps I may state what took place. It was represented to me that Members on both sides of the House were desirous not to come down to-morrow simply to vote for the adjournment of the House, as was the case at Easter. I stated that I could make no arrangement with any hon. Members on that point, but that any arrangement which was come to must be come to across the floor of the House. I suggested that a Question upon the point should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) from the other side of the House, and I also intimated that I believed the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly prepared to assent to any such proposal providing fair pro-gross be made to-night with the Bill. I believe I have stated exactly what took place, and I am sorry there should have been any misunderstanding.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will not bear me out in the statement that I had not made any proposal of any sort or kind to him when he beckoned me out of the House and suggested to me I should ask hon. Gentlemen behind me whether they would agree, on the terms suggested, to the Adjournment being moved to-night?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I was not in the House when the hon. Gentleman spoke upon this subject, and, therefore, I am not quite certain what he said. It was quite correct that he did not come to me and ask me to make this arrangement. I asked him if he could bring out the Leader of the Party below the Gangway, in order that I could ascertain whether the intimation conveyed to me came directly from headquarters.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 263: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 175.) [1.10 A.M.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I now claim to move, "That the Question, 'That the words from "within," in line 37, to the words "any part thereof," in line 39,' be now put."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Courtney, I rise to a

  993
  point of Order. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to move that the words—
  "Within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land, shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land or any part thereof."
  What I wish to submit to you, Sir, is that this portion of the sub-section has not been discussed—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—not a single Amendment—[Renewed cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That no Amendment has yet been proposed to it, that no discussion has yet taken place upon it, and that, in accordance with the ruling you gave some nights ago, the closure is not to be applied until all Amendments—[Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Until all Amendments which raise any point worthy of discussion have been discussed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask your ruling, Sir, on a point of Order which has been raised to-night—namely, whether it is competent to put the Question that certain words of a clause stand part of the Bill until, first and foremost, the closure has been moved to a substantial Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) has raised a point of Order. What I alluded to at the beginning of the evening was this—When a Motion is before the Committee, the closure could not be applied to a Motion to insert further words lower down until the Motion before the Committee was disposed of. That is what I laid down. There is now no Motion before the Committee; but the closure has been moved immediately after the Motion to report Progress has been disposed of, and I apprehend it is possible to move the closure at this point.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I submit to you, Mr. Courtney, that, on the wording of the Closure Rule, it is not competent for the right hon. Gentleman to make this Motion. Allow me to refer you to the terms of the Rule—
  "After a Question has been proposed, a Member rising in his place may claim to move, 'That the Question be now put;'"
  994
  and then it goes on—
  "When the Motion 'That the Question be now put' has been carried, and the Question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair as aforesaid not having been withheld) which may be requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair; and also if a Clause be then under consideration, a Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair as aforesaid not having been withheld) That the Question That certain words of the Clause defined in the Motion stand part of the Clause, or That the Clause stand part of, or be added to the Bill, be now put. Such Motions shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or Debate."
  I submit to you, Mr. Courtney, that the words "When the Motion, 'That the Question be now put' has been carried," govern the whole of the paragraph.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I made my first answer under a wrong impression, created, possibly, in the confusion of the Committee. I thought that the Motion to report Progress had been clôtured. If that had been clôtured, there would be no necessity for hesitation in clôturing the present Motion. I must own, however, that closure cannot be applied to a Motion to add words until it has been applied to a previous Motion. It is not a point which raises any substantial difficulty, as it is very easy to see a way to get over it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move that you do now leave the Chair, and I do so, Mr. Courtney, on the ground that we are confronted by a position of considerable difficulty. I submit to the Government that it is unreasonable to take the next Amendment without discussion, in view of the facts which arose in 1882. I would remind the Government of what took place in 1882. In the clause as it originally stood in the Bill the term was only six months; but when we Irish Members were all expelled from the House, Mr. Gibson—now Lord Ashbourne—moved to make it nine months. Of course, under the circumstances, no discussion was possible upon that proposal. The Government, however, now propose to make it 12 months. I would submit to them that seeing that the term was increased from six to nine months when the majority of the Irish Members were expelled from the House, it is perfectly unreasonable now to seek to make it 12. I would move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member, having moved to report Progress, cannot now move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But I have made a Motion——
  THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Dr. KENNY (Cork Co., S.).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I say I have made a Motion——
  THE CHAIRMAN: And I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that he cannot make that Motion, for he made the previous Motion that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. CHANCE: Then, Sir, I will move that you do now leave the Chair.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I claim to move that the Question be now put.
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put,"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 259; Noes 113: Majority 146.—(Div. List, No. 176.) [1.35 A.M.]
  Question, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," put, and negatived.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I claim, Sir, to move—
  "That the Question 'That the words—"(b.) Within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land or any part thereof," stand part of the Clause,' he now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 116: Majority 137.—(Div. List, No. 177.) [1.50 A.M.]
  Question put,
  "That the words—'(b.) Within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land or any part thereof,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 119: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 178.) [2.0 A.M.]
  MR. M. J. KENNY: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty) I rise to move the Proviso of which he has given Notice. It is to the effect that, in the carrying out of this
  996
  Bill, before proceedings are instituted against any person for taking possession there must have been an actual riot or an actual assault in connection with the affair. Now, Sir, it may to some appear absolutely unnecessary to insert such a Proviso. To the English, who are accustomed to see laws administered in their own way, it may appear altogether unnecessary. But, Sir, we have experience of somewhat recent date in Ireland which shows that, during the administration of the previous law, it was not deemed necessary that there should be anything in the nature of an actual breach of the peace, or anything in the nature of a riot, or anything in the nature of an assault attended by actual bodily harm, for the purpose of enabling the police to institute prosecutions under a similar section to this. Repeatedly, during the operation of the last Crimes Act, prosecutions were instituted, and convictions were obtained before special magistrates, and men were sentenced to considerable terms of imprisonment with hard labour simply for acts of ordinary trespass. Surely it is monstrous that a mere civil act of trespass, which in this country might give rise to a civil action and to a claim for damage, if any damage was done, should be made a criminal offence in Ireland because it happens to be done in Ireland. There is no reason for that, and if hon. Members who talk about equal laws and equal administration for England and Ireland would set a good example, and show their adherence to their principles by voting in favour of my Amendment, they would do something to justify people in believing that their professions are sincere. Furthermore, the Proviso goes on to state that——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Before the hon. Member proceeds further, I must express the opinion that the latter part of the Proviso is not at all relevant to the clause. The hon. Member proposes a Proviso in these words—
  "Provided always, That no prosecution for this offence shall be instituted by the Constabulary unless there has been an assault or rioting in the taking of such forcible possession, nor shall the Constabulary act as caretakers for any evicted house or land left without a caretaker, nor shall they specially patrol in the neighbourhood unless they apprehend some disturbance of the peace other than the mere resumption of possession, nor shall they interrogate occupiers, or in any way take side

  997
  with the plaintiff or defendant in such writ of possession save to keep the peace between the parties."
  The Proviso should stop at the words "forcible possession."
  MR. M. J. KENNY: The reason why my hon. Friend put down the remaining portion of his Proviso was this—that the Crimes Act came into force in 1882, and a Circular was issued to the Constabulary ordering them to patrol in the neighbourhood of evicted farms, and watch the proceedings of the tenants.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That would be a very good reason to discuss the question on the Constabulary Vote; but it is not relevant here.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: Well, I will discuss it on the Constabulary Vote, and I will now move the Proviso down to the word "possession." I have practically stated the reason for moving the Amendment, which is now a very short and simple one. It is simply to provide that something in the nature of a riot or assault must take place before a prosecution can be instituted under the section. It has repeatedly happened under the administration of the Whiteboy Acts that for simply walking about on their own land, for simply walking across their own land, men have been seized, prosecuted, and transported under the Whiteboy Acts. Under the last Coercion Act, they were sentenced to imprisonment for three months or six months. I think that if the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) were here, he would see his way to admit the reasonableness of this Proviso. I do not know what attitude the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) may assume. He may be so enamoured of the Criminal Law of Ireland that he will not let us make any change; but I should, at any rate, like him to explain why an offence which is merely a civil matter in England should be made a crime punishable with six months' imprisonment with hard labour in Ireland. I beg to propose the Proviso standing in the name of my hon. Friend.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 39, after the word "thereof," to insert the words—''Provided always, That no prosecution for this offence shall be instituted by the Constabulary unless there has
  998
  been an assault or riot in the taking of such forcible possession."—(Mr. M. J. Kenny.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOMES): It is not the effect of this clause, nor is it the intention of the Government, to make anything a criminal offence in Ireland which is not a criminal offence in England. The clause refers to holding forcible possession; but if the words which the hon. Gentleman has moved were inserted, they would take out of the operation of the section most of the cases in which forcible possession is taken. As a rule, there is no riot or assault in taking forcible possession. What occurs is this. Eight or ten men may come down and, in a threatening way, take possession. Of course, under such circumstances, it would be impossible for a caretaker to resist. Two men might come down armed, and naturally the unarmed caretaker would run away at once. That is taking forcible possession. Then, suppose a man went down, broke open the doors, and walked in. That is not a riot, or an assault; but, at the same time, it is taking forcible possession. All these, which are typical cases of taking forcible possession, certainly in Ireland, would be excluded from the operation of the clause by the adoption of the hon. Member's Proviso.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: What about holding possession?
  MR. HOLMES: That is precisely the same thing.
  MR. FLYNN: If hon. Gentlemen opposite and some hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House would carefully study the clause, they would come to the conclusion that, as it at present stands, the pains and penalties which will be attached to anybody—to any evicted tenant, or to any number of tenants—are simply alarming. Take the case of a tenant who is evicted in the very depth of winter, at a time when, possibly, he has no other protection against the inclemency of the weather except the cabin from which he has been evicted. We will assume the case of this man taking "forcible possession" by getting in through the window or through the roof. Would it not be monstrous,

  999
  under such circumstances, to decide that that man had taken ''forcible possession?" I contend that if the Committee pass this clause without examining it very closely, and accepting a safeguard such as this Amendment would provide, they will act very harshly. I am perfectly certain the Committee would be slow to pass such a clause as this if they could trace it to its real and logical conclusion. It is all very well to be told by Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench that the law is the same in England as is proposed for Ireland under this clause. But what cases of eviction have you in England? In Ireland the chronic condition of the people alternates between eviction and the workhouse. It is very possible that, under the present condition of things, evictions will be largely increased; and you propose to put it into the power of two Resident Magistrates, who have no sympathy with the people, whose training and entire surroundings make them look upon the smallest infraction of the landlords' rights as monstrous crimes—you put it in the power of these men to treat the smallest and most trivial offences as forcible possession punishable by six months' imprisonment. If, however, you accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, the Constabulary will not be able to institute a prosecution unless there has been an assault or riot. I appeal to the Committee not to vote on these technical definitions of legal Gentlemen on the Front Bench, but to apply their own common sense to this sub-section. If they will only do that, they will find there is nothing in this Amendment which really takes away the strength of the clause—there is nothing which will prevent the magistrate or the law punishing men who have taken forcible possession, and who have by violent means assisted the Sheriff and his officers. By the Amendment you only interpose a safeguard to prevent unfortunate people—the poorest of their class—who in many cases have been treated with exceptional cruelty and barbarity for what, after all, is a most trivial offence.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I have personal cognizance of cases which are totally opposed to the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes). I had occasion, some time ago, to mention one case
  1000
  in this House. It was a case in which on a certain stormy night, a man got up in the cabin in which he was sheltering himself, and when he saw the house from which he had been evicted, and which he had hoped would be his own—when he saw that house suffering from the storm, he forgot for the moment that the police caretakers were located near, went to the house, and put some stones on the roof to prevent the thatch being blown away. Now, that man was actually brought before the Resident Magistrate, under this clause, for taking forcible possession, and he was sentenced to a month's imprisonment. He actually served a month's imprisonment in Tralee Gaol. In another case, an old man named Boyd, over 72 years of age, was evicted, and after his eviction, and before the nine months' term had expired, he went to Listowel, and, on the faith of a settlement, went back to his cabin without having received in writing a formal permission to do so. The police found him in possession of his house. He was prosecuted, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment for it. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) talks to the Committee about bodies of armed men coming down and forcing people into possession. But no man in his senses would maintain for a moment that the case I have mentioned was a case of anything like forcible possession. I could cite cases like that by the hundred to show that there is some need for such protection as is now proposed in regard to these miserable wretches who are turned out of house and home, and to show that there is not the least necessity for visiting with the utmost severity of the law those men who merely seek their old cabins for shelter. A man who goes back into his dwelling can be summoned and fined. He can be fined every time he goes there, and every time his wife or children are found there. Surely it is sufficient punishment for those miserable creatures to be summoned and to have cumulative fines imposed upon them. The law, as it stands, is what I call coercion made easy. Surely the operation of the ordinary law is enough for the Government in such cases as these.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I had thought, Sir, that if we were to have expressions of humanity from any

  1001
  Members of the Tory Party at any time, this would have been the occasion upon which we should have heard them. I should like to put in plain language to Tory Members what they are now going to vote for if they reject this Amendment. When unfortunate wretches are turned out on the roadside with their 'wives and children, if the inclemency of the weather renders it absolutely necessary to take shelter in their old huts, no other shelter being obtainable, the mere fact of their taking the hasp off the door and going back, if it is only to put the women back, renders them liable to severe punishment. Cases have occurred in which, for the sake of sheltering shivering women and children from the winter's snow, an old hut has been re-entered, and the police have taken up the man and sent him to gaol and to the plank bed. Is it too much to expect that, under such circumstances as these, miserable people, with no place under which to lay their heads, should have the poor protection we now seek to obtain for them? I ask you, who are comfortable in your beds at night, is it too much to ask that you should accept this Amendment? And when they go back you call it taking forcible possession. In God's name, is this a House of human beings? Are we in Ireland to be treated like dogs? If, in our poverty, we are unable to pay the miserable rents exacted of us, is the mere fact of taking the hasp off the door of the house that we have ourselves built, or that has been built by our fathers—is the mere fact of taking the hasp off the door in order to put back a shivering wife or a shivering child out of the winter's snow, to subject us to the punishment you would inflict under this clause of 12 months' hard labour? What was done by Lord Ashbourne in 1882, when we Irish Members were out of the House, was one of the most miserable things ever perpetrated in this House. When we were out, Lord Ashbourne, behind our backs, moved to make it nine months' imprisonment instead of six months'. And now what does this Tory Government do? They say they are acting in accordance with the precedent of 1882, and yet they make it 12 months. You have been reminded that you have the ordinary law to fall back upon. You can put these men in gaol for trespass.
  1002
  You can proceed against their children for trespass. You can take them up before the magistrates, who are the landlords of the locality, or the landlords' agents. Do have some little humanity in your hearts. I would say a word for the ordinary magistrates of Ireland. When cases come before them in which wretched men are prosecuted for putting their cold and starving women back in their cabins for a night's shelter their hearts are moved, but the Resident Magistrates commit men to prison for it. We hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) defending the action of the Government on the ground that men come down in crowds to put these people, by force of arms, into their dwellings. But if it is merely the case of a man taking the hasp off his own door, in order to put back his wife into his miserable, unfurnished, almost roofless cabin, for the sake of keeping her and her children from the wind and rain, where is the force of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument? Have you wives and children of your own? Can you feel no pity for these children? This clause does not prevent wrong being done even when a question of title is raised. A question of title may be raised, a suit may be entered, and a decision may be ultimately arrived at, as in the case of Father Keller, in which, on Saturday last, it was decided that the imprisonment was illegal. I would beseech the Committee to consider these points. Surely if they will take into consideration all the matters that we have brought under their attention they will give some play to human feeling. Can you not see that it would be sufficient to put this clause in operation where force is used to regain possession of a house and holding? It is useless to appeal to the Irish Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour), but surely an appeal of this kind cannot be lost upon Tory Gentlemen who have a duty to their consciences and to their constituents. I have here a case that occurred in 1882. It was published in 1883, before the Act got into working order. It says that a large number of men surrounded a dwelling-house, under the impression that the tenant and his family, who had been evicted, were in the habit of visit-

  1003
  ing it at night as a place of shelter. These men—they were policemen—searched the place, but did not find the man there. The wife and children were found sheltering in the house, but the man was spending the night on the mountain side. My God, is it not enough to turn the man out? Is it not enough that the man should spend his nights upon the bleak mountain side, but you must needs send him to prison for giving his wife the only shelter he can find for her—a cabin which was his own, and which is used by no one else?
  MR. DILLON: I have seen men and women with families of little children, this winter and last winter, in the midst of some of the most wretched weather that we have known for years, turned out of places in which they have lived for years, and in which hon. Members opposite would scorn to put their dogs. I have seen these people living in the ditches of the bleak country-side, within sight of what were their homes.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: A damned pack of assassins. [Cries of "Name, name!"]
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Name away! name away!
  MR. DILLON: No man could, for a moment, doubt that what drove those people out of their homes was absolute and unquestionable poverty. And, if that be true, who is there in this House who can deny that there are men in Ireland who have no bowels of compassion for these wretched people, and yet who have the sanction of your laws for their doings? You refuse us this small concession. The poor starving wretches who crawl into their own homes at night, or put their wives and children into their cabins, and themselves go and lie out in the ditches, you wish to have dragged off for 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Do you grant us no concession on behalf of these people? Do you give your sanction to scenes like those which have been described to you? You can weep crocodile's tears over the Glenbeigh evictions; but we who live in Ireland know that hardly a day goes by that deeds are not done as black as those of Glenbeigh. Hardly a week of my life has passed, when I have been living in Ireland, that deeds of that kind have not occurred. The Glenbeigh case became known in England by an accident; because the fool who carried out the eviction was idiot enough to pour oil on
  1004
  the roofs of the people's houses, that he might burn them out. What difference did it make to the people that their houses were burnt? I say it would be a mercy to these people to burn down their houses. Burn the houses if you like; but do not pass these plausible laws, which are defended by the Attorney General for Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about armed bands taking possession. Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, for one case in which these armed bands take possession of these miserable holdings, I can point out 50 cases where, instead of going with arms in their hands, these poor wretches have crawled back to their homes, unarmed, defenceless, beggared, starving, and in rags, from the ill-treatment of your laws, and wishing for nothing more than to be sheltered in their misery from the winter weather. And yet you listen to no appeal of this kind. You will have this clause put in force against these men, who come without arms in their hands. You want to be able to say to these poor wretches—"Lie in your ditches, and if you dare to creep back into your miserable hovels for a night's shelter, Parliament is going to send you to prison."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to say just one word more before this Division is taken. I wish to put it to the conscience of every invividual, so that he cannot say he was voting blindfold in this matter. We have made two appeals to hon. Gentlemen opposite. We now appeal to you, sitting on this side of the House, who are their masters (the Liberal Unionists). We ask the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) whether he is willing to allow this clause to be inserted in its present form in the Bill? He knows that the tenants on his father's estates in the district of Lismore, in the county of Waterford, are as honest a people as there are in the entire world. Now, it is proposed that if one of those tenants is put out, and goes back to his cabin for a night's shelter—for any kind of shelter, for a dog's shelter—or even if he, without force, puts his wife and children back into the miserable hut he built himself, or where he has lived all the days of his life, he will be liable to be sent to prison. I ask, is it unreasonable that we should stand up in this House and make these

  1005
  appeals to men under circumstances of this kind? It is impossible; it is repugnant to the feelings of men that such appeals should be made without effect. And all I can say is that, when you on the last day are appealing for mercy to One above, I hope that you, or those of you who are opposing this Amendment, will never find it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 237: Majority 119.—(Div. List, No. 179.) [3.0 A. M.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The decision just arrived at rules the next Amendment, No. 96.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That being so, I wish to ask the Government if they have any objection to an Amendment providing that unless some question of title should arise the section should not apply? I asked a Question to-day about the case of Kevil against King-Harman. That was the case of a tenant being prosecuted for taking turf on what he said was his own bog. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) contended that it was his bog, and the magistrate insisted upon arbitrating upon the case. The case was taken to the Queen's Bench, and the magistrate's decision was ousted. Here you give absolute discretion to the magistrate. No question of title can be raised. I think the least we can get from the Government, seeing that questions of title will arise, is that the section should not apply until the disputes have been settled. I had a case the other day of a man being ousted from a wrong holding. There was a distinct question of title there. I had another case in which a Captain Fagan ousted a tenant from his holding without any right or title whatsoever. The magistrate who would be a friend of Fagan would, under this section, have given the man six months' imprisonment for going back. I think when questions of title are involved we should get the benefit of the doubt. Unless the Government mean to pass this Bill by mere brute force they will accept the words which I propose.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, after the word "thereof," to insert the words, "unless a question of title is raised."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOMES): I hope the Committee will consider for a few moments the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It would have the effect of inciting persons to take possession of land by violence if any question of title was raised. The cases put by the hon. and learned Gentleman have nothing whatever to do with this section. If a Sheriff removes a man from land improperly, the Sheriff is liable to be sued and mulcted in heavy damages. That has nothing to do with forcible possession. Forcible possession means that a person, by employing force, takes possession of land which he has no right to take.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself. [Cries of "Order!"] I repeat, he ought to be ashamed to make such a statement. [Cries of "Name!" and "Order!"] I am perfectly in Order. I say the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be ashamed to make a statement of that character in this House, in view of the fact that the cases I have mentioned occurred only the other day, and ought to be within his official cognizance. To tell me that a Court of Law is open to a man who has been evicted, a man who is nothing more than a pauper, is absurd. A man who has not a cow, or even a goat to be seized, has a right of action against Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Sheriffs! I suppose stuff of that kind is good enough to go down with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Of course, at 3 o'clock in the morning, the hour for common sense has passed by. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland thinks that anything is good enough for supporters who will neither listen to argument, logic, pity, nor common sense. [Laughter.] I hope these laughs and sneers at the miseries of the poor people of Ireland will be remembered by the Chairman of Committees, to whom we must all bow. The question we are raising now is the question of the poor, the question of the evicted people, the question of the men who have nothing at all. It is not a question of taking forcible possession.

  1007
  Sir, I cannot use Parliamentary language to describe the statement of the right lion. and learned Gentleman. No force of any kind is required, no force is ever used, and there has not been in Ireland since 1880—I will admit that seven years ago, in the time of Mr. Forster, there were cases of taking forcible possession—since 1880 there have been no cases of taking forcible possession. I challenge the Attorney General for Ireland to put his finger upon a case of taking forcible possession for the last seven years. The Government are trading on the ignorance of the Committee, in the interest of the most contemptible class of men which ever cursed or disgraced a nation.
  MR. ANDERSON: Certainly, Sir, I have listened to the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland with profound astonishment. I venture to appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) sitting next to him, because I know from experience that he knows that what the Attorney General for Ireland has stated is utterly wrong. Everybody who knows anything of law in this country knows that when a question of title is raised it is a universal rule that a magistrate has no jurisdiction. The Attorney General knows perfectly well that that is the rule of this country—that the moment an ejectment or turning out is challenged the jurisdiction of a magistrate ceases. And yet, forsooth, the Government get up and say that they will not make a concession which is only in conformity with the ordinary law of this country! I suppose they do so because they are anxious upon asserting and carrying out to its bitter end this cruel section. I am astonished at the tone in which this debate is conducted by the supporters of the Government. [Ministerial cheers.] You have forgotten a great deal of what you heard yesterday at St. Margaret's Church. The lesson has been thrown away on the whole of you; you know it perfectly well. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes; I say it, and I say it because I mean it. I am perfectly satisfied that every hon. and learned Member opposite will agree with me in my statement of the law. Do not let anyone suppose I get up to state what I do not know. I say what I feel. When our proceedings become known out-of-doors, the country will feel you are
  1008
  forcing down this cruel section with all the cruelty you can put into it. Notwithstanding the appeals you have heard on behalf of the people of Ireland, you sit there unmoved, occasionally jeering and sneering at what is said. [Cries of "Order!"] The conduct of Her Majesty's Government and their supporters does them very little credit.
  MR. WEBSTER: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. The hon. Gentleman does nothing but talk to this side of the House, very unwarrantably, in my opinion.
  MR. ANDERSON: I do not wonder the hon. Member is impatient. He and those who sit with him are tongue-tied in this debate. They are burning, I know, to speak their true feelings—to get up and repudiate the action of their own Government. I hope the Attorney General will say something upon this Amendment, because I am satisfied the Attorney General for Ireland has not placed the matter fairly before the Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I am sorry to say I am obliged to state, most distinctly, that there is no law in England which would apply in the sense, either directly or indirectly, indicated by the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson). I regret that I should have heard such statements made under a misconception of this section. This section provides that a person may be prosecuted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, if he—
  "Within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land or any part thereof."
  No question of title could then be raised, and no question of title which could then be raised would be any bar to any proceedings, because the question of title would have been determined under the writ of possession. There is no provision in any Statute which would allow any question of title then raised to be any bar.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Your conduct is disgraceful.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Unless hon. Gentlemen are able more respectfully to restrain themselves I shall be obliged to take notice of their conduct.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE(speaking from his seat, and with head covered): Mr. Courtney, I wish to call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) has called me and other hon. Members "damned cowards."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I heard no such expression. It is extremely awkward and inconvenient to take notice of statements which are only reported in discussion, although reported, no doubt, in perfect good faith. I hope the hon. Member, whoever he be, who is so impugned, will withdraw the statement, or disavow having made it.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE: It was the hon. Member for Mid Cork.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Mid Cork, I hope, will either disavow or withdraw the statement.
  DR. TANNER(speaking from the Cross Benches on the Ministerial side of the House): In the first place, Sir, I wish to say that, as usual, I have been misquoted. I distinctly used the words "damned co wards," and I applied them to the whole crowd of men on this side of the House. I said it, and I would say it again, only I would not be in Order; therefore I will withdraw it.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 239; Noes 108: Majority 131.—(Div. List, No. 180.) [3.20 A.M.]
  Question put. "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 240: Majority 129.—(Div. List, No. 181.) [3.30 A.M.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I claim now to move the Question—
  "That the words 'or (c) shall assault, or wilfully and unlawfully resist or obstruct, any sheriff, constable, bailiff, process server, or other minister of the law, while in the execution of his duty, or shall assault him in consequence of such execution,' stand part of the Clause, be now put."
  MR. DILLON: I have an Amendment of an important character
  1010
  on the Paper, which I desire to move. I would ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether I can move it? [Cries of "Order!"]
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 109: Majority 135.—(Div, List, No. 182.) [3.45 A.M.]
  Question put,
  "That the words 'or (c) shall assault, or wilfully and unlawfully resist or obstruct, any sheriff, constable, bailiff, process server, or other minister of the law, while in the execution of his daty, or shall assault him in consequence of such execution,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 111: Majority 133,—(Div. List, No. 183.) [4.0 A.M.]
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I beg to move the omission of the words from "person," in line 1, page 3, to "any," in line 3, inclusive.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from the word "person" to the word "any" in line 3, inclusive.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'person who shall commit any offence punishable under the Whiteboy Acts as defined by this Act,' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I wish now, 10 minutes past 4 o'clock in the morning, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether he does not think sufficient progress has been made—[Cries of "No, no!"]—with this Bill in the course of this evening? I have no wish to delay the progress of the Bill; but the House has been now sitting for 12 hours, and you, Sir, yourself, have been 10 hours in the Chair. That is a great strain upon the physical and mental powers of any man, not even excepting yourself. Many of us—I for one—have been engaged in and about this House since 1 o'clock yesterday; and, inasmuch as there is other Business of importance to be taken, I think we are justified in suggesting to the Government that Progress should be now reported. In reference to the particular Amendment now before the Committee, that, of course, is moved in ac-

  1011
  cordance with a promise made earlier in the evening, and to it there can be no objection, especially as I understand the Government are willing to reconsider what offences under the Whiteboy Acts should be included in this clause. With reference to Sub-section 5, which is the only remaining sub-section of the clause, I think the right hon. Gentleman stated earlier in the evening that there were some Amendments worthy of discussion, and the discussion of which would take some little time. I think I may ask hon. Members to rise for a moment above the excitement and fever-heat to which they have reached. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen may jeer at that remark; but they must candidly confess that the frame of mind in which the Committee has been for some time past does not tend to a favourable and impartial consideration of Amendments. There is a fair case to ask the Government that Progress should now be reported, and that the remaining Business on the Paper should be proceeded with.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I fully recognize the extremely fair spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached this question; but I think I also may claim to deal with the matter before the Committee in an equally fair and candid spirit. I am very sorry indeed it should have been necessary to keep hon. Gentlemen sitting here till so late an hour. I had hoped we might have got through the Business of the evening before this. There is an understanding that those words should be omitted; surely they should not be the occasion of any debate at all. The right hon. Gentleman thoroughly admits that. Then we come to Sub-section 5. There is a disposition on the part of the Government to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Amendment he has on the Paper. That being the case, and seeing that we really have got very nearly to the end of the clause, it does seem to me we should lose time, instead of gaining it, if we reported Progress now. I think that with moderation, good temper, and good feeling, we may be able to complete our work, work which I had hoped we should have completed earlier without any undue strain upon yourself, Sir, or any officers of the
  1012
  House. I will take no contentious Business after this clause is reported.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The desire of the right hon. Gentleman to be courteous we must all admit; but I did not gather from his remarks that the Government will assent to the Motion to report Progress after the omission of Sub-section 4 is agreed to. The 5th sub-section relates to matters of great importance, and, therefore, it is not right it should be forced on at this hour.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I thought I had explained myself. It appears to me to be reasonable that we should take the clause, seeing that we are prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) in the Amendment he desires to move.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my expressing myself very strongly on this subject. We feel that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) demands the consideration of the Committee, and that it is impossible at this hour (4.15)—in fact, I think it would be impossible at any hour after 12 o'clock—to do justice to such an important Amendment. The First Lord of the Treasury will remember that my hon. and learned Friend drew most especial attention to this sub-section of the clause in the speech which he made on the second reading of the Bill. This has always been felt by Members on this side of the House to be one of the most contentious points in the Bill; and, therefore, I hope he will not insist upon taking the 5th sub-section this morning. I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman feeling it is important to get to a certain portion of the Bill at this Sitting; but, as regards the 5th sub-section, it was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), earlier in the evening, that that was a point at which the Government might stop. The 5th sub-section stands in a very different category to the rest. If the right hon. Gentleman perseveres with the sub-section, I shall feel bound to utter the strongest protest in my power against such a proceeding, I

  1013
  trust the Government will not go beyond the Amendment the Chief Secretary for Ireland has just moved.
  MR. DILLON: I have a suggestion to make which may possibly meet the views of the Government. There cannot be the slightest doubt that Sub-section 5 is not only novel in its character, but is of the most serious and wide-reaching character. To lay down the proposition that this Committee is to be called upon to pass into law such a provision as that, which will practically leave the entire Press of Ireland at the mercy of the magistrates, is most extraordinary, and unprecedented in the proceedings of this House. This clause has been urged through the Committee at a rate which we certainly consider to be most unjust and unfair to us. It has been the custom to discuss at considerable length, even after they have passed through Committee, clauses of such a complicated character as this; and the proposal I have to make is that if the Government can see their way to abandoning the 5th sub-section, we shall not offer any further opposition to the passing of the clause. This is a sub-section of a most extraordinary character, and, as has already been pointed out, there is an important Amendment to it on the Paper in the name of the late Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell), who has a claim even upon the present Government to have his Amendment discussed. Surely it is very strange the Government are in such a hurry that they will not allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to move an Amendment to which he has already stated in the House he attaches the utmost importance. I think I see a way in which the difficulty can be got over, and that is by the Government agreeing to omit the sub-section. The willingness of the Government to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) in the Amendment he has to the sub-section, affords us very little consolation indeed. Even with the words omitted, we should be landed in the old squabble as to the meaning of the words. The offer of the First Lord of the Treasury is quite illusory; and to enable the Government to state their views on the matter I beg to move that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress,
  1014
  and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We really cannot agree to the Motion to report Progress now, whatever course may be forced upon us at a later period. The words to be omitted are words which the whole Committee desires to omit; and, therefore, it would be unreasonable that we should not at least make progress so far as their omission is concerned.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I should like to say, in reference to the offer with regard to my Amendment, that the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the previous Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), which is to leave out the whole sub-section. Of course, my Amendment is based on the hypothesis—perhaps a correct one—that the Committee will reject the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. Having regard to the position my hon. and learned Friend occupies in the House, and to the fact that on the second reading of the Bill he particularly stated that he meant to raise the whole Press question on this clause, I appeal to the Government not to proceed with the 5th sub-section to-night. I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) has said with respect to not reporting Progress now. Let us omit the words in question, and then let the 5th sub-section stand over, so that my hon. and learned Friend may submit his Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be impossible for us to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—namely, that we should purchase the passing of this clause by the sacrifice of the 5th sub-section. To that sub-section we attach great importance, and we would not willingly abandon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has adverted to the fact that this sub-section is one on which the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) desires to move an Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman announced, in his speech on the second reading of the Bill, that the Amendment to which he attaches special importance raises the whole Press question. I regret as

  1015
  much as anybody that we are driven by the course which has been pursued by certain Gentlemen in this House to discuss anything, however trivial, at this hour of the morning (4.30); but we must, after all, choose the lesser of two evils. It may be better for us to choose to discuss matters at an hour when we would all be better in bed than to allow Public Business to be indefinitely and hopelessly prolonged.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not think the Government can properly understand the offer we make to them. We think we are making a concession in assenting to the postponement of the 5th sub-section. The Report stage undoubtedly gives the Government a great advantage, because on Report a Member is only allowed to speak once.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We promised to re-commit the Bill, if there is any alteration of any importance.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not think there was any desire on these Benches to oppose the Motion made by the Chief Secretary before the Motion for reporting Progress was made. We are all agreed upon the desirability of omitting atoncethe4th sub-section; what we now want is this—that the Chief Secretary should also postpone the 5th sub-section, especially in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell.) If to that question we get a simple answer—and the answer can be simple—our future course of action will be decided. We cannot think the Government wish to be so unreasonable as to press this sub-section in the absence of its chief opponent. If the Government give us a satisfactory answer as regards the 5th sub-section I have just heard that the Motion to report Progress will be withdrawn.
  MR. DILLON: I gather from the few observations which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that he contemplates reporting Progress after the omission of these words, because he said "whatever course we may be forced to adopt." I do not understand what the position of the Government is, because the First Lord of the Treasury plainly indicated—at least, that was the impression he conveyed to me—that the Government would be willing to report Progress at
  1016
  some stage before the clause was taken. I am quite prepared to withdraw my Motion to report Progress if the Government will assure us that they will report Progress after the present Amendment is disposed of, and before the 5th sub-section is taken. What I object to is that the 5th sub-section should be taken without adequate discussion, and in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). It would be a disgrace and a shame if no discussion were allowed upon such an Amendment as the hon. and learned Gentleman has placed upon the Paper. Before I sit down I desire to protest most earnestly against the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I absolutely deny that there has been, during this night, any obstruction whatever, or even prolongation of debate, on these Benches. I do not know what opinion may exist as to the proceedings of other nights; but I completely deny that there has been any obstruction tonight, and I have, on previous occasions, seen debates drawn out to very great lengths upon subjects of infinitesimal importance compared with the clause we have been discussing to-night. I think it is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the government of Ireland, and who ought to do what he considers to be necessary in as inoffensive a manner as he can, should have used an expression which he must know he ought not to have used, and which, at all events, must inevitably make his task more difficult in Ireland. When he insults us, he will invariably find his path bestrewed with difficulties. [Laugher.] It is all very well to laugh, but man after man has broken down in the attempt to govern Ireland. It is no laughing matter at all, and it is a foolish thing, and an unwise thing, and a sad thing, to see an Irish Chief Secretary begin his task, which is no joke for any man, by sneering at and insulting the Irish Representatives.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely the Government might honour us with a few words in reply. An hon. Friend of mine made a mistake in regard to the Irish Chief Secretary. We know upon the authority of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Gerald Balfour) that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) only took the position of Irish Chief Secretary because he despises the

  1017
  Irish soil—[Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: When was that said?] In this House to an hon. Member of this House.
  DR. TANNER: Swallow it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I heard the hon. Member for Mid Cork make use of a most offensive observation. I call upon him to withdraw the observation.
  DR. TANNER(sitting in his place, and raising his hat): Certainly, Sir.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will rise in his place and withdraw the observation.
  DR. TANNER(rising): Certainly, if you wish it.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise to Order, Sir. I ask you whether the manner in which the hon. Gentleman withdraws the observation is one which is conducive to the dignity of this House? He simply says he will withdraw it if you wish it, and expresses no regret for the use of the language.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that seeing that these are only informal matters——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Mid Cork must express his regret.
  DR. TANNER: Certainly, Sir; I thought I had already clearly expressed my regret. If you wish it I withdraw.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I wish the hon. Member for Mid Cork to understand that it is a duty he owes to the Committee not only to abstain from the use of offensive observations, but to apologize for the one he has just used.
  DR. TANNER: Certainly, Sir.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: They are not so very delicate to us, when they continue in this manner. On the point at which we have arrived we are asking for a very reasonable concession——
  MR. BYRON REED: I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) immediately repeated the offensive expression.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to confirm the statement of the hon. Member for East Bradford.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I must say I was sitting immediately in front of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, and was in a position to hear what he said, and I absolutely deny the (statement of the hon. Members opposite.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am in a position, Sir, to do the same.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) himself whether he avows or disavows having repeated the expression? I must ask whether he disavows having repeated the expression?
  DR. TANNER: Certainly, Sir; I rise to say——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Mid Cork whether he disavows having repeated the observation?
  DR. TANNER: Yes, of course. There has been another mistake made by hon. Gentlemen opposite—I never said anything of the sort.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out that in the first instance no mistake was made by any hon. Member. I heard the remark myself.
  DR. TANNER: Can I disavow what I did not say? I state that I did not repeat the expression, and, of course, I cannot disavow what I did not say.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I am in a position to state exactly what the hon. Gentleman said. He was asked by an hon. Gentleman behind him to state what was the observation which he said which was considered offensive to the Committee, and for which he expressed his apologies. He told the hon. Member quietly what the observation was, and the answer he made was immediately taken up by hon. Members opposite as being a repetition of the offensive language.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The matter can now come to a close.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am afraid that this incident shows Her Majesty's Government the undesirability—in fact the hopelessness—of pretending to conduct debate in the condition in which hon. Members find themselves. I would submit that it is unfair to ask us to debate this sub-section, which places the peace of the country at the mercy of two Executive characters at so late an hour of the morning. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk amongst them-self in a loud tone in order that none of us may be heard, and they consider that they conduct debates in a reasonable way. I should consider that this Motion should be withdrawn, if we could get from Her Majesty's Government a state-

  1019
  ment that they do not intend to press this important sub-section to-night. I think the First Lord of the Treasury was on the point of making a concession to us when the unpleasant incident which has just terminated arose. There has been so much unpleasantness to-day that it might be desirable, after all, when you are dealing with a large Party, assisted as it is by the sympathy of other hon. Gentlemen, and when you have an Amendment on the Paper to be proposed by the late Attorney General for England, it is desirable, I say, and it is due to the position of that hon. and learned Gentleman, that you should give a little time before bringing this clause to a termination. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say that after this Amendment is disposed of he would be disposed not to insist upon further progress being made with the Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it would be much more convenient if the Committee took the Business in the order in which it stands upon the Paper. If we disposed of the Amendment now before the Committee, it would then be fitting to consider the suggestion as to when the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney should be entered upon.
  MR. DILLON: Under those circumstances I withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and negatived; words struck out accordingly.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I would now repeat my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I put it specially on the ground of what is fair to this side of the Committee, and of what is fair to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). I move, Sir, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion, made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot say that I think the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman makes this Motion is a sufficient one. I do not want to do anything at any time, either in Committee or in the House, which appears
  1020
  to be unreasonable; but, surely, the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney should have been in his place. He has not been present on the Committee, unless I am very much mistaken, during the whole evening; and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite feels that the Motion the hon. and learned Gentleman has to make is an important one, I do not know anyone who is more capable of doing justice to it than the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman's arguments in support of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney would be as good as any which could be urged against the sub-section. It does seem to me a great misfortune that we should have now an Amendment thrown in the way of the completion of this clause. It seems to me unreasonable that a further delay should be asked for, when the Committee has fully considered the whole question, and when it is, I think, in a position to dispose of the most; important question remaining on the Paper in a very short time. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman opposite is prepared to make the Motion himself. If he does we will accept it in that way, and meet him in a reasonable manner. He is aware that on the Report stage he can move this Amendment; but I must say it is rather hard that in a full Committee, ready and disposed to enter into the consideration of these questions—["No, no!"] Well, with the exception of hon. Gentlemen opposite—I would say in a full Committee, ready and disposed to go on with the Business, I think it is hard that we should now be prevented in finishing the clause which we very reasonably asked to be allowed to finish at an early period of the evening.
  MR. BROADHURST: I do hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will let his better nature prevail. I apprehend that the fact that the hon. and learned Member (Sir Charles Russell) is not present to move his Amendment may very well be accounted for by the extraordinary progress we have made this evening. [Laughter.] I think that is a very reasonable statement—that we have made extraordinary progress this evening. The hon. and learned Member could not have expected that we would have reached his Amendment to-night.

  1021
  The offer the right hon. Gentleman opposite has made with regard to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend does not meet the case at all. It is the original Amendment—the omission of the sub-section—which the whole of this side of the Committee has the strongest desire to have debated ably and fully, and without reserve, and that cannot possibly be done at 5 o'clock in the morning. Sir, I would like to appeal to the Law Officers of the Crown, to the hon. and learned Attorney General and the hon. and learned Solicitor General; I would ask them to put in a plea for their learned brother on this side, that some consideration should be shown to his position, and to the important Amendment of which he has given Notice. I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the scenes of the last quarter of an hour; and I would ask him whether they are not arguments entirely in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Henry H. Fowler).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney was not here on Friday night, when he had an Amendment on the Paper. His Amendment on that occasion was moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid). There was a previous Amendment on the Paper to-night in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney; but he was not here to move it. I must say there was no reason to suppose that this Amendment would not be reached to-night; and we cannot help observing that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney has not been in the House during any part of the debate.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: It was never expected that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) would come on to-night. There is not the slightest desire on this (the Front Opposition) Bench to obstruct the Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; I repeat that statement. It is not reasonable to expect hon. Gentlemen to be here to move Amendments when it was not expected that so much progress would be made. But the force of our appeal lies in this—that we consider
  1022
  this sub-section one of the most important parts of the Bill—one that ought to be fully debated, and debated at an hour when the attention of Members can be given to it fairly, and when the attention of the public can be properly directed to the matter. It is because the sub-section is so important, and because we entertain such strong feelings with regard to it, that we do most strongly urge on Her Majesty's Government—certainly on the Leader of the House—that it would not be fair to a large section of the Members of this House if this sub-section were pressed at this hour of the morning. I think it would be impossible to take this sub-section in the present state of feeling in the House without a very lengthened space of time being devoted to its consideration. Upon this part of the Bill there arise a great number of important questions with regard to the Press, and we do once more beg hon. Members on the other side of the Committee to recognize the fairness of our appeal and the injustice that would be done to the opinions and feelings of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House if this question were not fully debated, and debated in such a manner that the public may know what takes place.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It may, perhaps, influence the conduct of Members of the Committee if I point out to them that it would not now be proper to put the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney. The first word "any" in Sub-section 5 has been struck out, and the words that remain to be dealt with are—
  "Person who, by words or acts, shall incite, solicit, encourage, or persuade any other person to commit any of the offences hereinbefore mentioned."
  The adoption of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney would not make sense. Therefore, it is impossible to deal with the hon. and learned Member's proposal.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Even supposing that the word "any" is allowed to remain, could it not be struck out on the Report stage? It so happens that in the clause we have just passed a word remains which is rather an absurdity—which will have to be struck out on Report. So can this word "any" He struck out. I would add this suggestion

  1023
  —you are going to deal with the question of the Whiteboy Acts on the Report stage with any Amendments that you may consider necessary. Then I would propose that you should take this clause now, omitting Sub-section 5, as well as Sub-section 4, and put them in on the Report stage, recommitting the Bill then. That, I think, is a perfectly reasonable proposition. It would get the Committee out of the difficulty into which it appears to have got. [Interruption.] I am addressing myself to those in charge of the Bill. I make a suggestion that will give the Government practically everything they want. They can put those words in on the Report stage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope we shall not have to re-commit the Bill in regard to the Whiteboy Acts, for I am of opinion that we shall find Sub-section 4 quite sufficient. Would it not meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite if the Government were to give a pledge that the debate on this question on Report shall be brought on early—before dinner in the evening, at a time when, if necessary, an important debate can take place on the subject? Would not that meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends around him?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The view we take upon this matter is this—I was obliged to put it on what I may call the ordinary grounds of courtesy, which have often had considerable weight on both sides of this Table in the management of Public Business. Our appeal on those grounds has been in vain. I now put it on the ground of public principle. I contend that it is impossible for anyone to debate a question of this kind at 5 o'clock in the morning. I appeal to the oldest Member of the House of Commons to say whether he ever knew an important debate to take place at this hour of the morning. ["Yes!"] Someone says "Yes." I suppose it is some hon. Member who is here in the House for the first time, and he is ready to give us the benefit of his experience of two or three months. I know something about all-night scenes in this House. They reflect no credit on the House of Commons or Parliamentary institutions, and I, for one, am very sorry that there ever should be any necessity for such a thing. Where All-night Sittings have taken place, their object has been to
  1024
  arrive at the definite and formal conclusion to which the House has practically arrived many hours before. The question now before the Committee has never been raised in any one of the debates which has previously occurred, and I am quite ready to admit to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there has been many questions that have been debated over and over again in this House. I do not deny that for a moment; but I say, as an historic fact, that the question of the operation of this Bill on the Press of Ireland has never been debated at all. I ask in that fairness which is due from a majority to a minority, and in the fairness which I am sure has always characterized the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the House, that so grave and important a discussion as this should not be brought on at 5 o'clock in the morning.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think, perhaps, the best solution of the question is to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). We will strike the sub-section out of the Bill now, with the object of introducing it on Report. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney can then be considered. I understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be content that the 2nd clause should be disposed of in this way.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will you recommit the Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That will be the form in which we will then take it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Re-commit the Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The proposal is to strike this sub-section out of the Bill now, and to bring it up again on Report. That I understand is the arrangement.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: With regard to this question of re-committing the Bill, I see the force of the hon. and learned Member's argument; but I would ask him to see what the position of the matter is. If the Government pursued a different course, and if we were in a majority, all that we could do would be to strike this sub-section out of the Bill. We could do nothing more, and then the Government might again propose to bring it in on Report, when we should have to discuss it again. I

  1025
  am bound to say that I think the offer the right hon. Gentleman has made is a fair one, and I would ask the Committee to accept it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section 5.
  Question, "That Sub-section 5 stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CHANCE: There are a number of Amendments on the Paper which have not been formally smothered as yet.
  MR. DILLON: Before you put the clause, Sir—I do not intend to raise a discussion at this hour of the morning, but I rise for the purpose of protesting against the course which is being taken. This clause is of enormous importance; and to say that we are to pass it as we are compelled to do now, practically sub silentio, is most unreasonable.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 103: Majority 132.—(Div. List, No. 184.) [5.0 A.M.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday 7th June.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, The Lord Advocate.)

[BILL 225.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Committee be deferred till Monday 6th June."
MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps the Government will say now what they propose to do in respect to the adjournment for the holidays.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): What I propose to do is to move that the House, after its sitting to-day at 2 o'clock, shall adjourn until the 6th of June. If hon. Gentlemen do not like it, I will not make that Motion; I merely wished to save hon. Gentlemen the trouble of coming down to-morrow. ["Oh!"] Then I will not make the Motion now.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee deferred till Monday 6th June.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACTS (IRELAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
(Sir James Corry, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Johnston.)

[BILL 176.] CONSIDERATION.
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
SIR JAMES CORRY: I have to move that the Bill, as amended, be now considered; and I wish to make a proposal to the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), which I hope will obviate any delay in the passing of the Bill. It is that in the Belfast Main Drainage Bill I will move to insert a new clause to give the same power as is possessed in England under the Borough Funds Act.
MR. SEXTON: I apprehend, in the first place, that the hon. Baronet will not have the power to do what he proposes. I think it would be much more convenient if the consideration of the Bill were postponed until the 6th June.
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday 6th June.

MOTIONS.
  MUNICIPAL REGULATION (CONSTABULARY, &c.) (BELFAST) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to make provision for the appointment of a Watch Committee in Belfast, and for other purposes in relation thereto."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
    MR. SEXTON: I suppose this Bill will be circulated immediately?
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): Yes.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think this Bill is opposed; but, at any rate, it is monstrous to ask leave to introduce a Bill of this kind at this time of the morning. We have Bills tinkering with the Royal Irish Constabulary every Session. We do not know what this Bill is. Why should it be brought on after 5 o'clock in the morning?
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I did not know the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the Bill. The 6th of June.
    Motion postponed till Monday 6th June.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. W. S. Smith.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask until what hour?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Two o'clock.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not necessary to make a separate Motion?
MR. SPEAKER: It is sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to mention the hour.
MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman not name 3 o'clock?
Question put, and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes after Five o'clock, A.M.

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Lord Kinnaird, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Allotments for Cottagers* (109).
Committee—Tithe Rent - Charge (54–110); Pluralities Act Amendment Act (1885) Amendment * (96), discharged.
Committee—Report—Hyde Park Corner (New Streets) (79).
Third Reading—Crofters Holdings (Scotland) * (90); County Courts Consolidation * (78), and passed.
Royal Assent—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) [50 Vict. c. 6]; Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension Act (1886) Amendment [50 Vict. c. 8]; Customs Consolidation Acts (1876) Amendment [50 Vict. c. 7]; Police Force Enfranchisement [50 Vict. c. 9]; Duke of Connaught's Leave [50 Vict. c. 10]; East India Stock Conversion [50 Vict. c. 11].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Commons Regulation (Ewer) * (108).
Third Reading—Local Government (Highways) * (87); Local Government (Poor Law) * (88); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 2) * (89), and passed.
Royal Assent—Metropolitan Police Provisional Order [50 Vict. c. xxxi.]; Local Government Provisional Orders [50 Vict. c. xlix.].

EGYPT—THE RUMOURED ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which he had given private Notice—namely, Whether he can give the House any information respecting the Convention as to Egypt, said to have been signed between England and the Porte?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SE-CRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am afraid I am not able to give as much information as I could wish. Late last night, certainly, an agreement was come to which disposed of a good deal of the difference between the Porte and ourselves. How far the agreement went I am unable to say, as the telegrams are somewhat confusing; and I am afraid that if I went into details I might possibly give an inaccurate impression. The negotiations, however, are going on very favourably, and I hope that when Parliament meets after the holidays I shall be able to lay further information before your Lordships.

HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.—(No. 79.)
(The Lord Henniker.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order].
LORD HENNIKER, who had given Notice to move to disagree to the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee on the Bill, said, it was always a rather strong measure to attack the decision of a Committee of the House, particularly such a Committee as sat on this Bill. The Office of Works felt very strongly that it was most important to pass this Bill this Session, and he wished it to be distinctly understood that he in no way wished to say anything against the decision of the Committee, who, no doubt, had decided as they thought right from the evidence placed before them. He, however, made an appeal to the House and to the Members of the Select Committee to allow the Bill to pass on the ground of expediency. The Bill was introduced in 1883, 1884, and 1885. He merely mentioned this to show how long the question had been pending, how much difficulty there had been in dealing with it, and that it seemed to be quite time that some conclusion should be come to on what was, after all, a small matter. It was only necessary for him to say what had happened last Session and this Session. In 1886 the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, but was altered in Committee, so that the cost of maintaining the roads was thrown on the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, and the Metropolitan Board of Works in equal parts. When the Bill came to the House of Lords the Committee of this House rejected this proposal. The Bill was accordingly lost. This Session it was again introduced into the House of Commons in exactly the same form in which it left it last Session, and the Committee to which it was referred reversed the decision of last year, and made St. George's, Hanover Square, pay two-thirds of the cost and St. Martin-in-the-Fields one-third. When it came to the House of Lords they reversed last year's decision and altered the Bill, so that St. George's was to pay three-sixths, St. Martin's one-sixth, and the Metropolitan Board of Works two-sixths of the expense. Their Lordships would see that the decisions in each House of last year were exactly reversed this Session. This again showed the great difficulty there had been in coming to a conclusion, and the almost impossibility of coming to a more satisfactory settlement. St. George's had always been ready to pay half the cost; it was much more an improvement for the advantage of that
822
parish than it could possibly be to St,. Martin's, and the extra cost thrown on St. George's was so small that he hoped that parish would be ready to pay what was asked of them, rather than allow the question to be hung up indefinitely. Taking a disinterested view of the question, it did not seem fair that a new precedent should be created for the Metropolitan Board of Works, or that parishes like Poplar and others in the Metropolitan area should be asked to maintain an improvement which was of no benefit to them. There was no parallel precedent that he knew of in the history of the Board of Works, except that of the Thames Embankment, where the Board kept the roadway up; but this was a very exceptional case. It was true that the Board paid some part of the cost of the maintenance of Westminster Bridge; but this was not a fair precedent, as the circumstances were different. Their Lordships would have noticed that the Metropolitan Members had met and decided to oppose the Amendments made in their Lordships' House. He supposed the Committee there would not go back from their decision under the circumstances. He, therefore, made a strong appeal to the House to let the Bill go back to the House of Commons as it came from there, and to the Members of the Committee not to press their views, so that the Bill might pass in the form which appeared to be the most acceptable solution of the question which at present had been proposed. His Lordship concluded by moving the rejection of the Amendments proposed.
Moved, "To disagree to the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee on the Bill."—(The Lord Henniker.)
THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, that as Chairman of and as representing the Select Committee, they had cot to consider the question of expediency, but to endeavour to come to a decision on fair and equitable grounds. He did not wish to disregard the appeal made by the Government on the ground of expediency; and on that ground alone, in order that the Bill might be passed this Session and become law, the Committee did not propose to ask their Lordships to insist upon their Amendments.
Motion agreed to; Amendments negatived; Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday the 9th of June next.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.—(No., 54.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he must ask the permission of their Lordships to make a few remarks on the general scope and character of the Bill. He must confess that he was rather disappointed on the occasion of the second reading. He came down to the House fully prepared and expecting to hoar an exhaustive debate on the principle involved in the Bill, which, he thought, the importance of the subject deserved. The House was well filled, and several Members of the Episcopal Bench were present; but, to his surprise, the Prime Minister moved the second reading of the Bill without a word of comment, the Question was promptly put from the Chair, and that stage of the Bill was passed with a celerity which, he humbly submitted, was hardly respectful to the great interests which were involved. It was under these circumstances that he humbly craved the indulgence of their Lordships, and he did so for a special reason. It appeared to him that this Bill touched the fringe of a great question, and touched it in such a manner as would infallibly cause it to be brought prominently before the public in a manner not contemplated by the framers of the Bill. In his introductory speech the Prime Minister told their Lordships that the Bill related to a subject which had recently attracted considerable attention—namely, the incidence and the mode of collection of tithe. But why had this question attracted considerable interest? Because the unusual and long-continued depression which had fallen on the agricultural community had caused tithe rent-charges to be collected with less facility than heretofore, and because, also, whereas the tithe rent-charge at the time of its commutation was calculated on the price of certain agricultural produce, the price of that produce had fallen considerably in value. If, in these circumstances, the noble Marquess had thought it right to bring in a Bill for the re-valuation of
824
tithes, or if he had thought it well to cause any alteration to be made in the basis on which they were collected, or, if objecting to such an alteration, he had proposed a Select Committee to inquire into all the circumstances of the case, possibly the public mind might have been for the moment satisfied. But the noble Marquess had taken a very different course. He had declared that tithe was not excessive; that at the time of the commutation the landowners made a good bargain; and he met the distress of the agriculturists and the complaints of the tithepayers by the singular device of increasing the security of the titheowners. Such a mode of proceeding would hardly be found satisfying; and he believed it would be found that, in proposing what the noble Marquess had done, he had made an innovation which would at once be noted by his opponents. For the first time in the history of this country the noble Marquess practically divorced the tithe from the land, made it a personal debt recoverable from an individual, and thus, he feared, inserted the thin end of the wedge, upon which the hammers of the friends of Disestablishment would hereafter be busily employed. The novelty of the principle thus introduced by the noble Marquess—the whole tenour of his Bill, and, indeed, the very basis upon which it rested—obliged him (Lord Brabourne) to say a few words upon the general question of tithe as it bore upon this particular measure. It was necessary to do so, both on account of something which had happened in the past, and of something which would certainly happen in the future. That which had happened in the past was this—that the advocates of Disestablishment and the defenders of the Church had put forward statements concerning tithe so contradictory as to confuse and mystify the public mind on the subject. That which would happen in the future was this—that when this Bill went down to the other House it would be carefully scrutinized and discussed by men who held different views, and he submitted that it was hardly wise—nay, hardly creditable to their Lordships—that they should proceed to legislate as if there was only one side to the question. While he thought that the advocates of Disestablishment had put forth many statements difficult to substantiate, he

825
was bound to say, on the other hand, that the defenders of the Church had not always assumed a position which was entirely impregnable. No doubt, many of their Lordships had read the defence of the Church which had emanated from the pen of the noble and learned Earl who had recently occupied the Woolsack (the Earl of Selborne). It would be presumptuous in him (Lord Brabourne) to speak of the ability and research displayed in that book, because nothing but research and ability would be expected from such a quarter. But, even in that volume, he could not help thinking that he detected something of the dogmatic tone which prevailed in the writings of ecclesiastical authorities. Statements were made concerning facts which had always been in dispute, as if those facts were beyond all doubt and controversy, whilst writers who had arrived at conclusions different from those of the noble and learned Earl were summarily dismissed as "uncritical writers," and their statements treated as "idle stories." There was a notable instance of this in regard to this very question of tithes. There was a very large party in this country who would not be excluded from this question, and who maintained that the clergy had not the exclusive right to the tithe, but that there was originally a division of the tithe for several purposes. They were in the habit of quoting the famous answer of Pope Gregory the Great to Augustine, in which he stated that the division of the offerings made by the faithful at the altar should be fourfold—first, a share to the Bishop and his family—propter hospitalitatem atque susceptionem; secondly, a share for the maintenance of the clergy; thirdly, the relief of the poor; and, fourthty, the fabric of the churches. Afterwards, when the Bishops were supported from other resources, their share was eliminated, and the division was threefold. Now, the noble and learned Earl admitted that this answer was given by Pope Gregory; he admitted that this division of tithes prevailed in parts of Western Christendom; but he denied that it ever existed in England. He (Lord Brabourne) would not presume to enter into an argument with the noble and learned Earl, neither would he trouble their Lordships with a disserta-
826
tion upon the Law of Tithes; but he called their attention to these facts in order that they might be aware that the exclusive right of the clergy to tithe was still challenged, and that it would be unwise to discuss this question as if the contrary were the case. In his humble judgment, the true wisdom of the Church of England would be to rest her claim to tithe, not on the appeals of ecclesiastical writers to a history which was at least doubtful, but upon a law and a fact which were beyond doubt or dispute. The law to which he referred was the Commutation Act of 1836, which gave the Church a Parliamentary title to the tithe, though, of course, at the same time it assumed and asserted the right of Parliament to determine the manner in which, and the extent to which, tithes should be levied. And the fact to which he alluded, and which he believed gave to the Church still greater security, was a fact to be found in the exemplary lives of her clergy, their conscientious discharge of their duties, and the liberal and generous spirit in which their incomes were spent among their people. He (Lord Brabourne) believed that there never was, at any time or in any country, a class of men who bestowed a larger proportion of their incomes in charity and good works than did the clergy of the Church of England, and he should indeed regret it if any legislation of that House should diminish their influence, or lessen their powers of well-doing. It was, therefore, in no spirit of hostility to the Church that he (Lord Brabourne) proceeded to comment upon the Bill. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Halisbury) had stated that, at the time of the commutation in 1836, the landowners had made, and still had, a good bargain. He ventured to say, on the one hand, that a good bargain had been made by the Church. It was easy enough to point to the value of tithes before the commutation, and to show by figures that the Church afterwards received a less amount. But figures were deceptive things, and there was something else to be taken into consideration. Did the noble Marquess remember what was the state of things before the Commutation Act? In introducing his Bill Lord John Russell said that "the objection to tithes was daily increasing in strength, and that men were becoming

827
more and more unwilling to pay them." He stated, moreover, emphatically, in allusion to those who "were in the habit of talking of the absolute right to tithe," that, in his opinion, tithe was "the property of the nation, although participated in by individuals." Well, at the time of the Act in question voluntary commutation had taken place in about 2,000 parishes in England. Over the greater part of the country tithe was still taken in kind. And what did that mean? That in a very large number of cases the clergyman had either to secure the goodwill of his parishioners by a considerable sacrifice of income, or to run a grievous risk of forfeiting that goodwill by insisting upon his strict legal rights. People talked now as if tithe meant the tenth of the net produce—that was, the realized produce of the land. It was no such thing. It was the tenth of the gross produce to which the clergyman had a right—he could take the tenth sheaf of wheat, the tenth cock of hay, the tenth lamb, and so on, down to the tenth egg; and, if time permitted, he (Lord Brabourne) could tell their Lordships some laughable stories as to the deception which was sometimes practised in these matters. But then the clergyman had to convert the produce into money as he could. Many of their Lordships could doubtless remember the old barns and premises which used to stand in the vicinity of country rectories. What did those mean? They were the places in which the tithe produce was stored, and in which took place the process of conversion into money. They represented the trouble and expense to which the clergyman was put, plus the actual expense of collecting the tithe, and they represented something more—those barns and premises represented an item of repairs and dilapidations which greatly reduced the income of a clergyman, apart from the actual cost already named. All this the clergyman entirely got rid of by the Act of 1836, and he had since received his money without any of the enormous trouble and expense which before that Act he was obliged to encounter. But he gained something more. Besides the Parliamentary title to tithes acquired under that Act, the Church got quit of that friction which had previously existed between the clergy and their parishioners, and which
828
was of very serious import. The Church had, indeed, made no bad bargain under the Act of 1836, even if there had been some sacrifice of actual income. That was the opinion at the time, and if noble Lords would take the trouble to refer to the debates, they would find that the Bill was constantly referred to as "the Clergyman's Bill," on account of the belief which was entertained that it was favourable to the interests of the clergy. In his (Lord Brabourne's) opinion, not only was the Act in question beneficial to the Church, but the friction between the clergy and their parishioners had become so great as to be almost unbearable; and if some such well-considered measure had not been passed at the time, he felt confident that serious mischief would have ensued, and that the position of the advocates of Disestablishment would have been far stronger to-day than was happily the case. The noble Marquess had stated that this was legitimately an owner's and not an occupier's tax. The same thing was clearly stated in the noble and learned Earl's (the Earl of Selborne's) pamphlet. He said—
"The rent of tithe-free land is always greater than that of land subject to tithe; if there were no tithe, the landowner, and not the occupier, would have the benefit."
Now, that was not exactly the form in which the matter presented itself to the agricultural mind in this time of distress. Take the case of a farmer who was paying 30 s. an acre for his farm—20 s. in rent and 10 s. in tithe, and in many cases the tithe actually bore a higher proportion to the rent than that. Now, in many such cases the occupier had received a reduction from 20 s. to 15 s. in his rent, so that this 25 per cent reduction brought his total payment down to 25 s. per acre. He could not expect to obtain a similar reduction from the titheowner. But he knew perfectly well that if there were no such thing as tithe, and that it had been 30 s. per acre paid to one man, his reduction would, in all probability, have been from 30 s., not to 25 s., but to 20 s., because it was much easier to get a reduction from one man to whom the whole 30 s. was payable than from two men who divided the receipts in the proportion of 20 s. to one and 10 s. to the other. That was the practical way in which the question presented itself to the occupier;

829
or, put it in another way, if there were no tithe the landowner could better afford to let his land for 20 s. per acre to the occupier than he could afford to let it at 15 s. or 16 s. with a payment upon it of 10 s. per acre to the titheowner. No doubt the intention of the Act of 1836 was that the occupier should pay the tithe and deduct it from his rent. In practice, the landowner let his land at a lower rate than he otherwise would have done, and the tenant undertook to pay the tithe. It was thus practically made an occupier's debt, which could be recovered, just as rent, by distraint. But was this so wholly wrong? Tithe, in its origin, was not a charge upon the land, but upon the produce of the land; and it did not seem unwise or unjust that, upon whomsoever the burden should ultimately fall, it should, in the first instance, be discharged by and through the person who dealt directly with the produce—namely, the occupier. Moreover, it was much more convenient that it should be so, inasmuch as the occupier was almost always resident upon the land, whilst the landlord was constantly non-resident. Now, what good would this Bill effect in that respect? He (Lord Brabourne) did not understand that it was proposed to interfere with the contract which might be made between man and man. If such interference were contemplated, it would probably be evaded; but if not, what would probably be done? The landowner would still, for obvious reasons, desire to keep before his tenants' eyes what the land was paying for rent and for tithe separately. He would, therefore, say to his tenant—"We will keep the rent as it is, and as the Legislature has now directed that the tithe is to be paid through me and not through you, I will pay it, and we will have a covenant in our agreement that you shall pay me an equivalent for that tithe in our annual settlement of rent." The payments will thus be still kept separate—the occupier will know, as he now knows, what he is practically paying on account of tithe, and all that you will have effected by this Bill will be to have put an end to an arrangement which, upon the whole, has been proved by experience to be the most convenient for all parties concerned. But now he (Lord Brabourne) desired to gall their Lordships' attention
830
to two points of special importance—first, with regard to the owners; and, secondly, with regard to the remedy proposed by the Bill in lieu of distraint. Now, first, as to the owners, who were they? Their Lordships' House was frequently designated a House of Landowners; and there from some persons deduced the singular argument that they were unfit to legislate upon any question relating to land. But he earnestly wished to impress this upon their Lordships—that they were not now dealing with a matter which concerned only large landowners. This question had been greatly misunderstood. There was a very large number of small landowners in this country. The most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) was recently endeavouring to show that the reduction of 5 per cent to owners for prompt payment was unnecessary, and that there was practically very little expense and inconvenience to the clergy at present in the collection of tithes. To show that the most rev. Prelate took 10 parishes, taken haphazard from five different counties—two from each county—and said that in these parishes, out of 883 tithepayers, upwards of 700 were owners of the land, for which they paid tithes. And he went onto say that out of 58,000 persons who paid tithes to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 37,000, or nearly two-thirds, were owners. Now, these words were pregnant with meaning and instruction, Let their Lordships examine a little more closely into this question of small owners. Take the case of any parish in which there were men occupying 10, 20, 50, or 100 acres, which he would call a small occupation. Now, if these men were the tenants of a large owner, the clergyman's tithe was practically secure. It was not from them that the difficulty arose. And why? Because the landowner and his agent knew perfectly well that if the tenant left at Michaelmas with his tithe unpaid, the titheowner could recover it from the land. Therefore, the land agent who knew his duty would take care that no tenant leaving a farm received his valuation from an incoming tenant until he could produce the receipt for his tithe, just as much as for his rent. So the clergyman had the landowner and his agent standing between himself and the occupier, and his tithe was secure.

831
But now take the case of men holding 10, 20, 50, or 100 acres of their own. These men were amongst the most suffering of the whole community. The legislation of the last 40 years, whether it was right or wrong, had been all in favour of the consumer, and had pressed most cruelly upon the British producer. Those small owners of land had felt the full pressure and weight of this legislation. They had been ground down to the ground. In an immense number of cases they had been obliged to mortgage their small properties up to the hilt, and they were crippled by the payment of interest which was higher than would have been their rent if they had been the tenants of a large landowner. Now, to these men, the payment of 5s., 6s., 8s., or 10 s. per acre tithe was a grievous burden, and it was with them that the chief difficulty arose. What relief was offered them by this Bill? Not one fraction. Remember, moreover, that this class of small owners was one which many people thought it was most desirable to extend and encourage. But the only change which this Bill proposed to make in their condition was a change for the worse. He (Lord Brabourne), being no lawyer, spoke with diffidence upon legal points; but he apprehended that when tithe was made a simple debt, and a man was made personally liable, as proposed by the Bill, it meant that all his resources must be called upon to defray the debt, and that failing payment he must suffer in his person. So that what this Bill would do would be to make the small owner personally liable, and all his property, whatever it might be, liable, for a debt which, at present, attached only to that part of his property which happened to be in land. He (Lord Brabourne) could not help thinking that his noble Friend at the head of the Government had felt this to be a hardship, and had had this class of small owners in view when he proposed that 5 per cent reduction should be allowed for payment within 3 months. If he (Lord Brabourne) had introduced this Bill, he was not prepared to say that he should have proposed relief to the tithepayer in that form; but as the noble Marquess had done so, he could not but regret that he had withdrawn it at the very first blast of clerical opposition. There was something to be said on both sides. Where the clergyman
832
had incurred small or no expense in collecting his tithes, on account of the paucity of owners from whom he had to collect, no doubt the effect would have been that he would have been giving 5 per cent to his tithepayers without equivalent advantage to himself. In other words, he would just now be giving a reduction of 5 per cent, where his lay brethren were giving 20 and 25 per cent reduction in their rents. But if he had been obliged to incur expense and trouble in collection, this would have been saved to him; and, moreover, there would have been the inducement to small and struggling owners to strain every nerve to pay quickly, and thus obtain their 5 per cent, instead of deferring payment until the last possible moment. Moreover, as there was going to be a new security given to the Church, this proposal of 5 per cent reduction did not seem wholly unreasonable, and would have been hailed as some earnest of sympathy with the distressed agriculturists on the part of the Legislature. He therefore regretted that, having been proposed, it had been so summarily withdrawn. And now he (Lord Brabourne) came to that which had been heralded forth as the great been to be given by the Bill—namely, the abolition of distress for tithe. He confessed that he was rather a heretic in that matter. He very much doubted whether the abolition of the power of distraint was going to do all the good which was expected. He had no figures to show to their Lordships upon this subject; and, if he had, he doubted if he should trouble them with figures which were apt to mislead. But many of the cases of distraint in the counties of Kent and Sussex had been with respect to "Extraordinary Tithe," with which this Bill did not deal. It had been dealt with last year by a Bill which he, for one, had weakly accepted, because he found that the whole Bench of Bishops were unanimously in its favour, but which he believed to be one of the most unjust Bills ever placed upon the Statute Book. Extraordinary tithe essentially related to a specially remunerative kind of produce, of which the occupier got the benefit; and the Bill in question had placed a permanent charge upon the land after the remunerative crop had ceased to be grown, and when it had probably rendered the land less valuable for the future. But

833
they were now dealing only with ordinary tithe, and he could not say how many cases of distraint had recently occurred. As he understood the present measure, it substituted for distraint the ordinary process of the County Courts. Now, he (Lord Brabourne) believed that recalcitrant tithepayers would be much less in fear of the County Court than they were at present of distraint. Distraint was a very disagreeable thing. It was very unpleasant to have bailiffs in possession of your premises, and to have your goods sold to defray your debts. But, because it was so disagreeable, people were the more anxious to avoid it, and the remedy, though short and sharp, was effective. A man would generally prefer to pay his tithe, rather than submit to this process. But proceedings in the County Court did not come home to him nearly so soon, whilst they put the person who instituted them to considerable trouble and annoyance. First, there was the summons to be taken out, and the debt proved. If that was done, an order was generally made for the payment of the debt by instalments. Perhaps these were paid at first, and then suspended. Then came another application to the Court, and, finally, a judgment summons was issued. Upon that a month was usually given before the expiration of which the debt was to be paid. During all that time the clergyman would be placed in the invidious position of prosecuting his parishioner, and if, at the end of the month, the debt was not paid, he did not recover his debt as he did by distraint, but the remedy was the committal of the non-paying tithepayer to prison for 14 days. He very much questioned the advantage to the Church of this change. It would enable people who objected to the payment of tithes to pose as martyrs, and would be not unlikely to give rise to an agitation of which the consequences could not be foreseen. He much feared that the change would be productive of very little advantage. And now there was only one more detail of the Bill with which he must trouble their Lordships. He alluded to the Redemption Clauses. He had seen with some surprise that these had been objected to by the clergy, for they appeared to him (Lord Brabourne) rather favourable than otherwise to the Church. Let him take a case.
834
The noble Marquess proposed that 20 times the value of the apportioned rent-charge should be the price of redemption—that was to say, that for £100 of rent-charge an owner would pay £2,000, or 20 years' purchase. But as, at present, the value of the £100 was about £87, the actual number of years' purchase would be 23 and not 20. But the value of the rent-charge was falling, and competent judges expected it would ere long be at £75, or even at £70, which would make the number of years' purchase considerably greater. A man who was about to redeem tithe rent-charge would have to take this falling value into account. Moreover, when the tithe was redeemed he would no longer have to point to this charge, when letting his land, as some criterion for the rent; and though this seemed to matter little, in reality it was of some moment, and a person hiring the land would not take into account the sum which an owner had paid to redeem tithe, though he would necessarily take into account the annual charge so long as it existed. But there was something more. One of the great complaints of the clergy was that their tithe rent-charge was rated up to its full value. Now, as soon as the clergymen had received and invested his redemption money it would no longer be rateable. But as the same amount of rates would still have to be raised, it followed that a larger amount would fall upon the land upon which the tithe rent-charge had been redeemed. Taking this into account, the proposal of the noble Marquess would not work out very advantageously to the landowner, and he would think once, twice, and three times before he redeemed upon the proposed terms. But now look at it from the other side. The clergyman would receive a capital sum of £2,000, instead of £87 per annum now paid. But this £87 was likely to fall to £75. If his investments were restricted, he might not be able to get more than 3½ per cent for his £2,000, which would be £70 instead of £75. But he would at once obtain immunity from rates which could not be calculated at less than 10 per cent on the average; so that, when the question came to be closely worked out, it would be found that the actual loss to the clergyman would be very small, if eventually anything at all. But would he gain nothing, inde-

835
pendently of pecuniary considerations? There would be a far greater security for his new investment than there was for his rent-charge to-day. It was impossible to observe what was passing daily in this country without coming to that conclusion. No one could see the attitude taken by the advocates of Disestablishment without foreseeing future struggles. He (Lord Brabourne) did not wish to make Party allusions in this debate; but he could not help feeling that the events of the two or three last years had shown the probability that, at any moment, political exigencies might throw the whole weight of a powerful Party organization into the Disestablishment scale, and that we might have eminent men coming forward and pointing to particular sentences in their past speeches, which proved that for 12 or 14 years past they had not uttered a word against the principle of Disestablishment. Therefore it was that he (Lord Brabourne) felt sure that anything which drew the Church and her revenues outside the whirlpool of political agitation and political intrigue would be beneficial to the Church, even if it should involve some sacrifice of income, and therefore it was that he should rejoice if such terms of redemption could be offered as would make it a matter of easy and early accomplishment. And now he had only a few words to say besides thanking their Lordships for the indulgent hearing which they had given him. He could not help feeling that, in all these discussions, they were shirking the great difficulty which really underlay the question of tithes. There could be no doubt that, on the one hand, the burden pressed heavily upon the weaker part of the agricultural community in its present depressed condition, whilst, on the other hand, the incomes of the parochial clergy were really insufficient for the calls made upon them. What, then, was the real truth which lurked behind the question? It was this—that if a National Church was to exist among us as an Establishment, it ought to be supported by all kinds of national property. When tithes were first given by landowners, and afterwards imposed as a charge by Popes and Synods, land was practically the only property in the country. That had long ceased to be the case. Other sources of wealth had sprung up; men possessed great wealth
836
from these sources who contributed nothing to the Church, and the land, reduced in comparative value, still bore the whole burden. Why should that be so? There was but one answer—namely, that public opinion would not allow that act of justice to be done which would place the support of the National Church upon the general national taxation. No Minister would venture to propose it, because the Representatives of the people would not entertain the proposition, and therefore it must be considered as beyond the range of practical politics. But because that was so, it was not necessary to trifle with the subject by means of a Bill which gave no relief to those who were suffering. In the present depressed state of the agriculturists, this Bill, which only sought to perpetuate the present system and to stereotype an injustice, would not be received with any gratitude. Such a Bill might, indeed, be accepted by their Lordships on the powerful recommendation of the noble Marquess; it might even be accepted by the other House of Parliament, because, for other reasons, all sensible men, there and elsewhere, desired to keep the noble Marquess in power; but it was a Bill which, with whatever good intentions it might have been conceived, would neither settle the question, strengthen the Government, nor satisfy the country. He (Lord Brabourne) would not take upon himself the responsibility of moving the rejection of this Bill; but if such a Motion should be made he would feel bound to support it.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): In moving the second reading of this Bill without making any observations, I was actuated by the desire to spare your Lordships an unnecessary speech, as I had already spoken on the question upon the first reading, and I think I followed the rule upon such matters. As regards the speech of my noble Friend, (Lord Brabourne) his remarks were more properly applicable to the second reading, and I regret that the well-known diffidence of the noble Lord prevented him making his speech then. I did not know precisely to what points I ought to address myself in the speech of the noble Lord, because he took a very

837
wide range. I understood in the earlier part of his speech he was contending that tithe ought to be divided into four parts, of which only one part should go to the clergy, and that we ought to do that on the strength of an observation made by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the sixth century. If the opposite doctrine has been accepted during the centuries that have since elapsed, I think that is as good a title, based on prescription, as the clergy could wish to have. The noble Lord spoke of the enormous advantage which (he Church had derived in 1836 from getting a Parliamentary title. I am not quite sure that I appreciate the advantages of a Parliamentary title, after the experience of recent years. I am inclined to define a Parliamentary title as a title which Parliament thinks itself entitled to upset; at all events a prescription of 1,000 years seems to be superior to a Parliamentary title. But then a change seemed to come over the noble Lord's opinions in the course of his speech, and he makes a proposition which would make the hair of the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand on end—namely, that the payment of the clergy should be put on the general taxation of the country. Neither of these two propositions appears to me to be sufficiently within the range of practical politics. Perhaps, however, the best thing I can do in answer to the speech of the noble Lord is to re-state, in a very few words, what the object of the Bill is. That object is to relieve both the titheowner and the farmer from grievances under which they at present suffer—the titheowner that he has to recover a tithe from the person who does not owe it, and the farmer from the grievance that though he does not really owe it he is called upon to pay it. I am aware that the farmer is put into that position by his own act—by an agreement made with his landlord—but the inconvenience of the process is unquestionably very great, because all variations in the amount of tithe fall upon the farmer and are felt by him. in bad times, causing much exasperation, owing to the farmer having to bear the brunt of the payment at a time when he can least afford it, and leaving him subject, if he does not pay it, to a process—that of distraint—which we know from experience is singularly calculated to excite popular feeling. The agitation is going on in Wales and in
838
some of the western and southern counties of England at this time. I could easily produce most effective, striking, and I might almost say heartrending appeals from the clergy in those parts of the country, asking Parliament to come to their succcur by providing some mode of recovering the tithe that is due other than that of levying by distraint, as the state of popular feeling makes that remedy almost absolutely useless, involves great expenditure, and leaves a bitterness of feeling behind that it is difficult for them to overcome. There is a great political danger in the present state of things. It is not merely that the clergy cannot obtain what is their due, and that a burden is placed on the farmer which appears to him to be a hardship, but ill-feeling is thus being gradually fomented against one of the institutions of this country which may cause great embarrassment in the future. It is to put an end to this state of things that the present Bill is introduced, and I do not believe that any injustice will be caused by this Bill. There can be no doubt that it is the land and the land only that is liable for the tithe. The occupier never has been, and is not now, by law liable. What is liable is the gross produce of the land. If land yields no produce, then there is no tithe due. That has been the case hitherto, and that will still be the case under this Bill. Though the Bill makes the landowner liable for the tithe, it really only provides a change of procedure, substituting the simpler procedure of the County Court in the place of the ancient and exasperating procedure of distraint. The noble Lord raised again the question whether there ought not to be a change in the bargain made in 1836 on account of the changed circumstances since that time. I waited for him to state his case, and I expected that he would produce figures to show that tithe in those days was less valuable than it has become since, and to show the difference between tithe levied under the old law and under the present law. But he did nothing of the kind. I do not think that this can be shown. I still believe that, if you look at the prices of produce as it is now, and the prices in 1836 you will find that prices are still higher than they were at that time. The price of grain has, no doubt, fallen, but the other produce of the

839
land is more valuable than it was in 1836, and therefore the settlement of 1836 is more advantageous to the landowner than if he remained under the old law. The noble Lord did not make out the shadow of a case for reopening the question of valuation and tearing up the bargain which Parliament made in 1836. I do not think that this suggestion of the noble Lord has any support in this House, and I shall not. therefore, detain your Lordships any longer on this point. I acknowledge that the Bill only touches the fringe of a very large subject, and that it touches only that part of the subject with which we can hope most successfully to deal with; but I deny that, because the area the remedy covers is small, therefore the remedy ought not to be applied, or that, because certain great difficulties are beyond our powers, we should not address ourselves, where we can, to solve those smaller difficulties which are within our reach.
Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 (Short title).
On the Motion of The Duke of MARL-BOROUGH, Amendment made, in page 1, line 23, to leave out ("personally").
On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, Amendment made, in page 1, line 5, to leave out ("recovery").
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 (Personal liability of owner of lands for tithe rent-charge).
On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, Amendment made, in page 1, line 17, to leave out ("occupier of the land") and insert ("lands liable to the payment thereof ").
Amendment moved, in page 1, lines 19 to 24, leave out Sub-section 2.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the Bill gave no new right to the tithe-owner, whose only remedy, up to the present time, had been that of distraint. There could not be a greater mistake than to assume that England was parcelled out among large landowners. Although he would be glad to see a larger number of owners, there were still many owners who were not large landowners, and it was really those
840
owners, as well as the titheowners and the agriculturists, who were suffering most from agricultural depression. They were men of influence in their various districts, and still formed a yeoman class. These men would regret the withdrawal of this concession as a great grievance, and the withdrawal of it would be likely to prevent the passing of the Bill, or to interfere with the working of it. He believed that the concession embodied in the sub-section was only a just and wise concession to make.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON, in supporting the Amendment, said, it was not a one-sided bargain, because account ought to be taken of the 2nd sub-section of Clause 3—which limits arrears recoverable to the profit of the land. That would considerably diminish the claims of the titheowner. Hitherto, his claim had stood first, replacement of farmers' capital second, the profit of the farmer third, and the rent of the landlord fourth. But the 2nd sub-section of Clause 3 put the tithe rent-charge after the replacement of capital and after the profit of the farmer, and made it only precede the actual rent. At present, the claim of the titheowner was a perfectly clear one; but, under the Bill, it would be a question for the Court to decide. There was no doubt there would be a number of losses under the 2nd subsection of the 3rd clause.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE, who had also given Notice of his intention to move the omission of this sub-section, supported the Amendment.
LORD BRAMWELLalso supported the Amendment on the ground that the titheowner would lose 5 per cent, for which he received no benefit in return, and the landowner would get 5 per cent for no reason whatever.
LOLD BRABOURNEsaid, he hoped his noble Friend at the head of the Government would consent to modify, instead of striking out, the sub-section which gave the 5 per cent reduction for prompt payment. Their Lordships could now show that they desired to benefit, not themselves, but that class of small owners upon whom the depression of the times weighed so heavily. He would propose that the section should be amended, so that relief should be given not to all owners, but to owners of less than 50 or 100 acres of land, who would

841
fairly represent the class with which they all sympathized, and whom they could thus, to some small extent, relieve.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that many clergy collected their own tithes, and many tithes were collected at small costs, and upon the whole, it would be better to omit the words.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (Recovery of tithe rent-charge from the owner).
On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 27, leave out ("may be sued for such arrears"); in line 28, leave out ("for"); in line 30, leave out("so sued"), and insert ("sued by virtue of this Act "); and in page 2, line 25, after ("judgment") insert ("for such arrears or sum").
On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 27, after ("payable"), insert—
("Such arrears together with the full costs of recovering the same shall be recoverable from").
On the Motion of The Earl of SEL-BORNE, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 7, after ("land"), add—
("When the owner so sued is not himself the occupier of the lands, the rent received or receivable by such owner in respect thereof shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be the profit of the land ").
On the Motion of the Earl of SEL-BORNE, the following Amendment made:—In Sub-section 5, page 2, line 39, after ("therein") add—
("When the owner of any land in hid own occupation has been assessed to the poors rate in respect thereof on a valuation exceeding the amount of the tithe rentcharge for any such period of twelve months, the tithe rentcharge shall not be deemed to exceed the profit of the lands during such period").
EARL BEAUCHAMP, in reference to the subject under notice, said, he wished to point out that the section which gave the Court power to make orders against the landowner, did not provide for the case of farms being thrown upon the landowner in a bad state of cultivation, and which required a large outlay to bring them into a good state, but before that was done, had produced no return. During the past few years it had hap-
842
pened to him to have, from time to time, farms put on his hands in a state of inferior cultivation. By a sufficient outlay those farms had been brought into a good state of cultivation, but while they had been in the hands of the landowner no profit had been received. As he understood this sub-section, it appeared to him that the owner who cultivated his own land in these circumstances would be exonerated from the payment of tithe rent-charge. He did not think this was fair, and he trusted words would be inserted to guard against the application of the subsection as he stated it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his noble Friend must remember that under the old Law of Tithe, if there was no produce there was no tithe; and under the law as it existed, if there was not sufficient distraint, there was no tithe, unless the person interested took the land into his own hands. Their Lordships might assume that, as regarded cultivation, most persons would act on the ordinary principles of profit and loss; but if the cultivation produced no profit the payment of tithe would cease.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line30, after ("trust") add ("it shall in every such case be incumbent upon the owner to specify, to the satisfaction of the court, the property held upon such trust, and the court shall have power thereupon to order execution to issue against such property, by all or any such ways and means as would have been proper if the same had belonged to the owner for his own benefit").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he had no objection to accept the words.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved,
In line 30, at end of line insert as a separate sub-section:—"Arrears of tithe rentcharge may be recovered in the county court for the district in which the lands charged with such tithe rentcharge or any part of such lands are or is situate, and may, whatever the amount of such arrears, be recoverable with full costs, and where it is shown to the county court that by reason cither of the absence of the owner of such lauds or of the difficulty of ascertaining the person who is the owner thereof, there is likely to be delay in the payment of any sum adjudged to be paid for such arrears, the court may, in adjudging payment of the arrears or any sum in respect thereof, order that in the event of the non-payment of such arrears or sum within the time; limited by the judgment, the person in that behalf named in the judg-

843
ment shall be receiver and manager of the lands charged with such tithe rentcharge, and upon the expiration of the said time, without payment having been made, the person so named shall, without any further order of the court, become a manager and receiver of the said lands as if he had at the date of such expiration been appointed by the court."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he thought it important to distinguish who was the owner, and he would suggest that some obligation should be put upon the occupier upon request to say who was owner. The Bill in some cases, he thought, seemed to contemplate that there would always be an owner and an occupier, not bearing in mind that a person might be both owner and occupier in some instances.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, cases might arise in which a man might let his son or some other person into occupation of land without paying rents, or where in consideration of a lump sum a small rent was taken. In these cases, there would be no profit, in the first instance, because there was no rent; and, in the second, a smaller profit than was really due by reason of the reduced rent. These were matters which would require consideration before Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that there would be a beneficial occupation; but the question would receive consideration.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved an Amendment, to the effect that, when the owner of any land in his own occupation was assessed to the poor rate on a valuation exceeding the tithe rent-charge, the tithe rent-charge should not be deemed to exceed the profit of the lands.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that what the Amendment meant was, that after an owner of land had exercised all due diligence to let his land and had been unsuccessful, thereupon becoming the occupier himself, the Poor Law valuation was to be taken as the net profit of the land. He objected to that, because it was contrary to the whole principle of the Bill, which was that the owner was to be liable for what he had actually received. A great deal of land was not even cultivated; but he knew of no case in which the Poor Law valuation regarded land as worth nothing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that it was not from what the land was estimated to bear from year to year that the assessment was determined, but from the value taken over a long average of time. The practice proposed by the Amendment would, therefore, have a disturbing effect.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 39, after Sub-section 5, add following paragraph:—"If the owner of the lands liable to tithe rentcharge shall also be the occupier thereof, the wages of labour and all other expenses of cultivation, including interest at five pounds per centum upon the capital invested in the stock, implements, and similar things, shall be charged against the lands for each twelve months before any rent or profit is deemed to accrue from the said lands."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment moved, after Clause 3, add now Clause (A.):
(Attachment of rent.)
"(1.) It shall be lawful for the judge of any county court having jurisdiction in the place where any lands on which tithe rentcharge is charged are situate, although no action for the recovery thereof may be then depending, upon affidavit made by the person to whom such tithe rentcharge is due, or by any person on his behalf who can swear positively to the facts, stating that the tithe rentcharge charged upon such lands, or any part thereof, has been due, and in arrear for not less than three months after the same has become payable, and still remains unsatisfied, and verifying the amount so due and unsatisfied, and that any person other than the owner is in occupation of such lands, as a tenant holding to the best of the deponent's belief under such owner, and liable to pay rent to him in respect of such occupation, to order that any rent then duo from such occupying tenant to such owner, or thereafter to become due from him to such owner until all such tithe rentcharge so in arrears shall be fully paid and satisfied, shall be attached to answer and pay the tithe rentcharge so in arrear; and by the same or any subsequent order, it may be ordered that such occupying tenant shall appear before the court as the judge thereof may appoint, to show cause why he should not pay to the person to whom such tithe rentcharge is due the rent then due, or thereafter to become due from him to such owner, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the amount of the rent-charge so due and in arrear as aforesaid.
"(2.) Service of an order whereby the rent so due or to become due as aforesaid to the owner of such lands shall be attached, or notice thereof given to such occupying tenant in such manner as the court shall direct, shall bind all the rent so due, and which shall thenceforth, until the rentcharge so in arrear shall be fully

845
paid and satisfied, accrue or become due in the hands of such occupying tenant.
"(3.) If, out of the rent so due, or which shall have so accrued and become due as aforesaid, the occupying tenant, on whom such order for attachment of rent shall have been served, or to whom notice thereof shall have been given in manner aforesaid, shall not, on demand duly made by the person entitled to such tithe rentcharge, pay the same, or so much thereof as such rent as aforesaid shall extend to satisfy, the person entitled to such tithe rentcharge shall be at liberty to proceed against such occupying tenant by writ, to be issued on an exparte application out of the said court, calling upon him to show cause why there should not be execution against him for the amount of the tithe rentcharge so in arrear, or for the amount of the rent then due from him to the owner as aforesaid, if less than the amount of the tithe rentcharge so in arrear, and also for costs; and, unless such cause shall be shown to the satisfaction of the judge, the court shall thereupon order execution to issue in a summary way, in the same manner as if judgment for such amount had been recovered in an action duly brought in such court.
"(4.) Payment by, or execution levied upon, an occupying tenant under any such attachment or proceeding as aforesaid, shall be a valid discharge to him, as against such owner as aforesaid, to the amount of the rent so paid or levied.
"(5.) In any proceeding taken in any court under this section notice of such proceeding shall be given to the owner, or left at his last usual place of residence (if known), at such time and in such manner as the court shall direct, unless there shall be any difficulty in ascertaining or discovering such owner, or in giving such notice, in which case the court shall have power to dispense with the same.
"(6.) The costs of any application for an attachment of rent under this Act, and of any proceedings consequent thereon, shall be in the discretion of the court."—(The, Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYopposed the insertion of the proposed clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he thought it ought to be inserted, so that a fuller opinion might be taken as regarded it.
LORD MONK BRETTONsaid, that if the new clause was inserted, much of the good which was anticipated from the Bill would be undone. Under the Irish Tithe Act a Receiver was appointed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he would accept the clause. On the whole, it perhaps would be better to take the opinion of the House of Commons upon it.
New Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clauses 4, 5, and C separately agreed to.
Clause 7 (Facilities for discharge of land from tithe rent-charge).
Amendments made.
On the Motion of The Earl of SEL-BORNE, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 10, to leave out ("equal to") and insert ("not being less than.")
Amendment moved, in page 4, lines 16 to 36, to leave out Sub-section 3.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in supporting the Amendment, paid, he wished to point out that the plan proposed in that sub-section as to endowment trustees would be attended with great expense, with constant change as to the trustees, and also with great risks as to the securities.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would accept the Amendment, re-serving to himself the power of suggesting alterations at a future stage.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Motion of The Lord Bishop of LONDON, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 38, after ("sole") insert ("or aggregate, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England"); in lines 40 to 43, leave out ("invested by them") to the end of Sub-section 4, and insert—
("Carried by them to the redeemed tithe fund herein-after mentioned, and invested together with that fund, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall pay out of that fund to the person who would otherwise have been entitled to receive the tithe rentcharge redeemed such annual sum as at the time of the redemption the Commissioners may determine to be the net annual sum available for such person out of the redemption money");
and in page 5, line 2, leave out ("parson or").
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 (Supplemental provision as to endowment trustees).
On the Motion of The Lord Bishop of LONDON, Clause struck out of the Bill.
On the Motion of The LORD BISHOP of LONDON, the following new Clauses agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 8—
(Provision for redemption of tithe rentcharge).
"(1.) Any person desirous of discharging his lands from liability to tithe rentcharge payable to any ecclesiastical corporation, or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England (in this Act referred to as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners) may redeem the said tithe renteharge by the payment of an annuity of such amount and for such term of years as may be agreed upon with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
"(2.) The annuity shall be payable to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and shall be carried by them to a separate fund, in this Act referred to as the redeemed tithe fund.
"(3.) There shall be payable in perpetuity out of the redeemed tithe fund to the person who would otherwise have been entitled to receive the tithe rentcharge, such annual sum as is determined in manner herein-after mentioned to represent the net income derived from the tithe rentcharge.
"(4.) The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall pay out of the redeemed tithe fund all sums properly incurred by them in or incidental to the execution of this section, and subject thereto shall invest the same in any securities in which they can by law invest their common fund, and the dividends and income arising from such securities shall be carried to the redeemed tithe fund and applied in like manner as directed by this Act with respect to that fund.
"(.5) A person desirous of discharging his lands from any tithe rentcharge by an annuity under this section shall apply to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and those Commissioners shall thereupon name the annual amount which they consider ought to represent the net income derived from that tithe rentcharge, and the amount and duration of the annuity by which the same is to be redeemed, and shall send, if the tithe rentcharge is payable to the parson of a benefice having the cure of souls, to the incumbent and the patron of the benefice, and it the tithe rentcharge is payable to any other ecclesiastical corporation, to that corporation, notice of the annual amount which they consider ought to represent the net income derived from the tithe rentcharge, and before finally determining such annual amount and agreeing with the applicant on the annuity, shall consider and have duo regard to any objections to such amount which may be sent to them within one month after such notice.
"(6.) When the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have agreed with the applicant upon an annuity under this section, they shall certify the same to the Land Commissioners, and thereupon the Land Commissioners shall issue a certificate discharging the lands from liability to the tithe rentcharge redeemed by the annuity, and charging the lands with the annuity, and thereupon the annuity shall during the specified period be a rentcharge issuing out of the said lands, and be charged thereon in priority to all other charges and incumbrances whatsoever, except land tax, Crown rents, chief rents, and quit rents, and be recoverable in like manner as any oilier rentcharge is recoverable by law, and shall not be liable to any poor or oilier local rate or to land tax.
"(7.) The owner of any lands charged with the payment of an annuity under this section
848
may at any time determine such annuity by payment of a capital sum of such amount as may be agreed upon with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Upon payment of the said capital sum, the determination of the annuity shall he certified by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the Land Commissioners, and thereupon the Land Commissioners shall issue a certificate of such determination, and the certificate shall discharge the lands from liability for the annuity.
"(8.) The said capital sum shall be carried to the redeemed tithe fund, and be applied in like manner as directed by this Act with respect to that fund.
"(9.) Any tenant for life or person having the powers of a tenant for life under the Settled Land Act, 1882, also any person having power under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, to sell land by agreement in pursuance of that Act shall have power to agree with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the redemption of tithe rentcharge under this Act, and any money which may by law be applied in the redemption of tithe rentcharge charged on any lands may be applied in payment of a capital sum for the determination of an annuity charged under this Act on such lands."
New Clause, to follow new Clause 8—
(Compulsory redemption of small sums of tithe rentcharge.)
"(1.) Where the total amount of tithe rent-charge which is payable to an ecclesiastical corporation or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and is charged on the lands of the same owner, does not exceed two pounds, the person for the time being entited to the tithe rentcharge may by notice in writing require such owner to redeem the same by payment to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners either of a capital sum equal to twenty-one times the amount of tithe rentcharge fixed by the apportionment or any altered apportionment, or of an annuity of fifty-two years calculated at the rate of one pound sixteen shillings for every two pounds of tithe rent-charge fixed by the apportionment or any altered apportionment.
"(2.) If within six months after such notice has been served on the owner, the said capital sum has not been paid, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may certify the amount of the annuity to the Land Commissioners, and shall satisfy the Land Commissioners that the said notice had been duly served, and if the Land Commissioners are so satisfied, the provisions of this Act shall apply as if such annuity had been agreed upon between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the owner of the land.
"(3.) A notice for the purposes of this section shall be served on the owner by serving the same either on him or on the person actually receiving the tithe rentcharge whether as agent or otherwise, and by so serving the same either on such owner or person personally, or by leaving the same at his most usual or last known place of abode in England. Such notice may also be served by post, and it shall be sufficient in proving such service to prove that the notice was prepaid and properly addressed and put into the post office, and the same shall be denied to be properly addressed if addressed

849
to such owner or person at his most usual or last known place of abode in England.
"(4.) The sums received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under this section shall be carried to the redeemed tithe fund, and applied in like manner as directed by this Act with respect to that fund, and the Commissioners shall pay in perpetuity out of that fund to the person who would otherwise be entitled to receive the tithe rentcharge redeemed under this section such annual sum as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may at the time of the redemption determine to be equivalent for the purposes of such redemption to the net income derived from the tithe rentcharge."
Clause 9 (Savings) verbally amended, and, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 (Meaning of owner, and liabilities of several owners and mode of service of writ on owner).
On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, the following Amendments made:—
In page 6, line 31, leave out the first (''or"), and insert ("means the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, and in case of lands belonging to"); in line 32, leave out ("Commissioners and"); in line 33, after ("1836") insert ("so however that the provisions of this Act with respect to persons holding lands in trust for a public purpose shall apply to such Commissioners and officers, and any sums recovered from the Commissioners of Woods under this Act shall be deemed to be part of the expenses of the management of the land revenues of the Crown, and shall be payable out of such money and in such manner as those expenses are by law payable"); and in line 33, at end of foregoing paragraph ("Any reference in this Act to a person entitled to tithe rentcharge shall, in the case of tithe rentcharge belonging to the Queen in right of her Crown, mean the Commissioners of Woods, and in the case of tithe rentcharge belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster, or to the Duchy of Cornwall, mean the officers mentioned in section thirteen of the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836").
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On the Motion of The Earl of SEL-BORNE, the following new Clauses agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill:—
New Clause (B.)—
"Nothing in this Act shall alter or affect the order or priority of any lithe rentcharge, as a charge upon any land, as between the person entitled thereto and any persons entitled to other charges upon the same land."
New Clause (C.)—
"(1.) The purchase money of land sold by a, university or college under the Universities and College Estates Act, 1858, or any other Act amending the same, may, with the consent of the Land Commissioners, be applied by the university or college in. the discharge of any lands
850
belonging thereto from liability to tithe rent-charge in manner provided by this Act.
"(2.) The consent of the Land Commissioners shall be evidenced by an order under their hands and common seal in the form or to the effect set forth in the third schedule to this Act."
Clause 11 (Definitions).
On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, after line 29, insert as a separate paragraph ("The expression 'parson' means rector, vicar, or other incumbent").
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.

MEMORANDUM AS TO NEW CLAUSES PROPOSED BY THE BISHOP OF LONDON.
"The new clauses have been prepared with the view of providing facilities for the redemption of tithe rentcharge without any advance of capital, and upon terms as easy as possible to the landowner.
"It is proposed to effect the redemption by converting the permanent payment varying with the 'averages' into a fixed payment by way of terminable annuity, including principal and interest, for a limited number of years.
"In order to make the annual payment as small as possible, it is proposed to extend the payment over a term of fifty-two years, and to reduce the rate of interest below the rates usually charged by the Public Works Loan Commissioners for advances made by them.
"The rate of interest proposed to be charged in computing the terminable annuity is three and live-eighths per cent., about one half per cent, less than the rate which is usually charged by the insurance offices for advances repayable by instalments over a term of fifty years.
"The extinction of a tithe rentcharge of the 'commuted value' of one hundred pounds per annum could be secured upon these terms by a fixed annual payment of ninety pounds for a period of fifty-two years.
"The landowner would pay for a limited number of years a fixed payment ten per cent. below the commuted amount, and should he at any time during the term be desirous of discharging his land from the payment, he could do so by paying, without notice, the balance of capital remaining unpaid at the end of any half year of the term.
"The above terms are not, except as respects tithe rentcharge under two pounds, stated in the new clauses, as some variation in the terms must necessarily be required to meet exceptional cases.
"The payments, whether of capital or by way of annuity, would be made to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and carried by them to a separate fund to be called the 'Redeemed Tithe Fund.' Out of this fund payments would be made half-yearly by the Commissioners to the owner of the tithe redeemed or in course of redemption. The payment to the tithe-owner in respect of each one hundred pounds of 'com-

851
muted amount' of tithe rentcharge would be seventy pounds, free of all deductions excepting income tax. This would he the exact equivalent of a sale at twenty years purchase, the money being paid down and invested in a three and a half per cent. stock at par.
"These payments would he charged upon the 'Redeemed Tithe Fund,' and the proportions of the annuities which would provide the required capital by the end of the term would be invested half yearly as they were paid.
"The clauses relating to the compulsory redemption of amounts under two pounds have been prepared upon the same terms, and would ensure the extinction of these small payments without inflicting any hardship upon the small freeholders, as they would only have to pay a fixed payment for a definite number of years equal to nine-tenths of the 'commuted amount.' And in the event of their being in a position to discharge the outstanding balance of the purchase money, it could be paid off at the end of any half year without notice.
"20th May 1887."

SCHEDULES.
Second Schedules severally agreed to.
On the Motion of the LORD BISHOP of LONDON, the following new Schedule agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill:—

THIRD SCHEDULE.
Form of Order authorising the application of purchase Money in the Discharge of Lands from Liability to Tithe Rentcharge.

LAND COMMISSION.
In the matter of the Universities and College Estates Acts, 1858 to 1880, and in the matter of the Tithe Rentcharge (Recovery) Act, 1887, ex parte [here state title of university or college].
Whereas there is now standing in the books of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England to the credit of the account of the Land Commissioners, ex parte [here state the particular amount] the sum of £ [here insert the amount of cash or stock] being moneys derived from the sale of certain lands belonging to the said university [or college] by virtue of certain orders heretofore issued by the said Commissioners under the provisions of the said Acts.
And whereas a statement has been submitted to the said Commissioners on behalf of the said university [or college] containing a proposal for the application of the said sum of £ [or the sum of £ part of the said sum of £] to [here name the purpose to which it is proposed to apply the money] the said application being one within the provisions of the said Acts.
Now the said Commissioners being of the opinion upon consideration of the circumstances that the proposed application of the said money will be advantageous and for the interests of the said university [or college] and their successors, do hereby direct that the said sum of £ [or the said sum of £ to be paid or raised out of the said sum of £] now
852
standing to the credit of the said account, be applied to the purpose aforesaid.
Witness their hands and common seal this day of
Preamble agreed to.
The Report of the said Amendments to be received on Friday the 10 th of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 110.)

AFRICA (SOUTH)—AFFAIRS OF SWAZILAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have decided upon the course to be adopted with respect to Swaziland, and what communications have been addressed to or received from the President of the South African Republic on the question? said, he would remind their Lordships that a continual incursion of Boers into Swaziland was going on, and if no steps were taken very soon, it would be extremely difficult to get them out at all. British rights were largely involved in this question; almost all the mining rights in the country being in the hands of British subjects, and not only our own fellow-countrymen, but the Natives especially needed protection against a largo incursion of Boors. He hoped to hear a satisfactory assurance with respect to Pondoland, similar to that which was made the other day in ''another place" by the Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to Zululand.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, that Her Majesty's Government had ascertained that the Swazi King had made complaints to the Transvaal Government of the action of English subjects, precisely similar to those made to the Governor of Natal with regard to the Boers. The fact appeared to be that the King had granted grazing licences to the Boers, and had also granted mining licences of the same ground. The time of year had now come when the Boers would take advantage of these grazing concessions, and would drive in their cattle, and that was the probable reason of those rumours of Boer raids. The Government of the South African Republic had stated their belief that these rumours were unfounded, and had telegraphed that they knew full well the obliga-

  853
  tions which the London Convention of 1884 imposed upon both parties, that they had always kept those obligations in view, and would continue to do so. Her Majesty's Government were informed that the Transvaal Government had sent a Commission to investigate the position of affairs, and Her Majesty's Government had requested to be furnished with a copy of their Report. Looking at the friendly feeling of the Representatives of the Transvaal Government, and the desire which they had expressed to give effect to the provisions of the Convention of London, Her Majesty's Government had addressed a despatch to Sir Hercules Robinson, inviting him to consider whether some joint action might not be possible between Her Majesty's Government and the Transvaal Government for the maintenance of order in Swaziland.

  ALLOTMENTS FOE COTTAGERS BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to make better provision with respect to allotments for cottagers—Was presented by The Earl of Jersey (for The Earl of Dunraven); read 1a (No. 109.)

  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92. and 93. be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, to Thursday the 9th of June next, a quarter before Four o'clock.