Sitting of 13 February 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Emigration and Immigration, appointed; Printing, appointed and nominated; Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons), appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance* [96]; Liquor Traffic Local Veto (Scotland)* [106]; Burials* [111].
Ordered—First Reading—Places of Worship Sites* [93]; Agricultural Tenancies Rating* [94]; Borough Funds* [95]; Housing of the Working Classes* [97]; Office under the Crown (Vacating of Seats)* [98]; Life Leases Conversion* [99]; Ecclesiastical Contumacy* [100]; Hares Preservation* [101]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Cornwall)* [102]; Access to Mountains (Scotland)* [103]; Allotments Act (1887) Amendment* [104]; Beer Adulteration* [105]; Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment* [107]; University of Glasgow (St. Mungo's College)* [108]; Municipal Rates* [109]; Occupiers' Disqualification Removal* [110]; British and Irish Industry* [112]; Metropolitan Fire Brigade Expenses* [113]; Mining Leases (Cornwall and Devon)* [114].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Act (1878) Amendment* [86].

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (ARREST OF MEMBERS).
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House, that he had received the following Letters relating to the Imprisonment of certain Members of this House:—
Castlerea, County of Roscommon,
9th February, 1888.
Sir,
I beg leave to inform you that David Sheehy, Esq., a Member of the House of Commons, was tried before John T. Dillon, R.M., and Fras. B. Henn, R.M., constituted as a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, pursuant to the provisions of the Act 50 & 51 Vic. chap. 20, at French-park, on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of December last, and was convicted of the offence following:—
"That he on the 25th day of September 1887, at Frenchpark, in the county of Roscommon, being a proclaimed district under the provisions of ' The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887,' did wilfully and unlawfully incite certain persons to resist and obstruct certain other persons, to wit, sheriff's bailiffs and other ministers of the Law while in the execution of their duty."
And that the said David Sheehy, Esq., M.P., was sentenced by said Court to imprisonment for three calendar months, and that he is at present in Her Majesty's Prison at Sligo.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your very obedient servant,
JOHN T. DILLON, R.M.
To the Right Honourable,
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
Waterford,
February 11th, 1888.
Sir,
I beg leave to inform you that I have this day committed to the county Waterford Gaol Mr. J. D. Pyne, a Member of the House of Commons, upon remand to appear at Kilmac-thomas Petty Sessions on Tuesday next the 14th inst. to answer a charge of having unlawfully incited certain persons to wilfully resist and obstruct certain Sheriffs, Constables, Bailiffs, and others, Ministers of the Law, while in the execution of their duty. The charge states that the offence was committed at Schraban, in the county of Waterford, being a proclaimed district under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act of 1887, and on the 15th day of October, 1887. Mr. J. D. Pyne is at present in the Prison at Waterford.
I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
D. Q. BODKIN,
Resident Magistrate.
To the Right Honble.
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
February 13th, 1888.
Sir,
It having been officially communicated to me that Mr. Jasper Douglas Pyne, and Mr. James Gilhooly, both Members of the House of Commons, have been arrested in London under Irish Warrants backed by me, I have the honour to inform you that Warrants issued by Justices for the Counties of Waterford and Cork respectively, for offences committed by those gentlemen in those respective Counties in Ireland, were presented to me at this Court on the 18th of January last for my Indorsement thereon, and that having satisfied myself, upon the oath of the officer who presented them, that the Warrants were respectively issued by the Justices whose signatures they bore, and that they exercised jurisdiction in the respective Counties in which the alleged offences wore committed, I backed the said Warrants under the provisions of the 11 and 12 Vic. c. 42, sec. 12.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
J. VAUGHAN.
Metropolitan Police Magistrate, sitting at the Police Court,
Bow Street.
The Right Hon.
The Speaker of the House of Commons.

QUESTIONS.

  LABOUR STATISTICS—PERIODICAL RETURNS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Department of Labour Statistics to issue any periodical Return of present Labour Statistics; and, if so, when the first Return will be issued; and, whether any steps have been taken to give effect to the yet unexecuted proposals in the Memorandum issued by the Board of Trade in August, 1886?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The question of the issue of periodical Returns has not yet been formally taken up by the Department. It is expected that this question may be considered more properly after experience has been gained by the issue of Returns on special points such as have been issued since the Department was

  247
  formed, including the notices which have appeared from time to time—and lately month by month—in The Board of Trade Journal. The proposals in the Memorandum issued by the Board of Trade in August, 1886, are being carried out as rapidly as possible with the means at the disposal of the Department. With regard to the more important of them—namely, the census of wages—the Department have issued no fewer than 57,936 Circulars to employers in 94 trades requiring the use of many forms and schedules. The number of Returns received is 7,836, and further Returns are coming. The labour is one of very great magnitude; and the work of digesting these Returns so as to throw light on the relative numbers of the wage-earning classes employed at different rates of wages, which is deemed to be essential, must necessarily take much time.

  ADMIRALTY—NAVAL INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he would consent to lay upon the Table of the House the Report (dated November, 1886) containing the strong and unanimous opinion of the Committee composed of the four Naval members of the Board of Admiralty relative to the salaries and duties of a proposed Naval Intelligence Department, as well as to the absolute necessity for immediately forming such a department in the interests of the safety of the Empire?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Memorandum in question is of a confidential character, and the rule which has invariably regulated the production of all Official Papers is that, when they are of a confidential character, they should not be made public. Therefore, I am afraid that in the present instance, in consequence of this rule, I cannot accede to the request of my noble and gallant Friend.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: In consequence of the answer I have received from my noble Friend, I beg to give Notice that I shall, on the earliest opportunity, move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the system of administration both of the War Office and of the Admiralty.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—CASESOF M. MOYNIHAM AND T. QUINLAN.
  MR. PICTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Maurice Moyniham and Thomas Quinlan, sentenced at Tralee, on Monday, 6th February, to a month's imprisonment for "booing and hissing" at a constable named Clarke; whether Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., in giving judgment, is correctly reported to have said, "our duty is to stop such insults to officers of the law;" whether, at the trial, any evidence was given of any obstruction offered to Clarke by the accused except such as consisted in the utterance of jeering sounds; and, whether that is the only crime for which they are now in prison?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Maurice Moyniham and Thomas Quinlan appeared on summons at Tralee Petty Sessions on the 6th of February to show cause why they should not be bound over to their good behaviour for having been guilty of conduct calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. It was proved that when Sergeant Clarke and two constables were proceeding on duty they were met by the two defendants, who followed them for some distance, booing, hissing, and shouting at them. The Resident Magistrate says it is quite true he made the statement quoted in the question. There was no other evidence given, as there was no other charge against the defendants. The defendants were ordered to find bail to be of good behaviour, or in default to be imprisoned for a month. They declined to give the required bail, electing to go to prison.

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the further Correspondence that has taken place on the subject of Lighthouse Illuminants since the issue of the last Return (No. 282 of last Session), so as to complete the Correspondence on the subject up to the present date?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: If the hon. Member

  249
  will move for the Correspondence I shall have pleasure in laying it on the Table.

  TRADES UNIONS—STATISTICAL TABLES.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, To how many Trades Unions the Circular of October, 1887, headed "Statistical Tables and Report on Trades Unions," was sent by the labour correspondent, and the earliest and latest dates at which such Circular was sent out; what number of Societies have replied, and the earliest and latest dates of such replies; and, whether the replies are full and satisfactory, or otherwise?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: Circulars were sent to 312 Unions on the 10th of November, 1887, or within a few days thereafter. Sixteen were returned from the Post Office as "not found;" two were returned marked "dissolved;" 24 up to now have been received, most of which are in a very incomplete state. The latest was received two days ago; 270 are, therefore, still out; but it is possible that some Unions may not send in their Returns until they are able to give the results for 1887.

  REGISTER OF SASINES, EDINBURGH— OFFICE OF KEEPER.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether in the recent filling up of the vacated office of Keeper of the Register of Sasines, the provisions of the Act 31 & 32 Vict. c. 64, s. 20, have been strictly fulfilled; and, whether he will lay a Copy of the deed of appointment upon the Table of the House?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Yes, Sir; they have been. I cannot undertake to lay the deed of appointment on the Table.

  THE IRON-WORKING INDUSTRY—IMPORTATION OF POLISH WORKMEN.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has received any communications with regard to the importation of Russian Poles into
  250
  Scotland as a source of cheap labour in the iron-working industry; and, if so, whether he has come to any decision with a view to putting a stop to the immigration of workers who are likely to become a charge upon the ratepayers of the country?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The only communication we have received is the letter addressed to us by the hon. Gentleman himself. We have had no other communication. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government on Friday intimated that they would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject of pauper immigration.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887— RETURN OF EVICTION NOTICES.
  R. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Return of notices issued under section 7 of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," will be presented?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Return to which the hon. Member's Question refers was laid on the Table at the opening of the Session.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1887—THE CONVENTION OF ROME.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any of the Powers who were parties to the Convention of Rome have expressed their intention of adopting the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act of last Session; and, if he can state what efforts have been made, and with what success, to give practical effect to the Resolutions of the Convention?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Several Governments have notified their adhesion to the additional Articles drawn up at the Conference at Rome of 1886; but difficulties have occurred in several instances with reference to the domestic legislation required to give effect to those Articles. A Circular was addressed, after the passing of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, to the Powers who were parties

  251
  to the Convention of 1883, and correspondence has continued with reference to the subject.

  INDIA (FINANCE &c.)—INCREASE OF THE SALT TAX.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, What addition to the Revenue is estimated from the increase of the Salt Tax?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Rs.x.1,625,000 annually.

  THE DUTCH EAST INDIES—IMPORTATION OF COOLIES.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether an application has been received from the Dutch. Government to be allowed to import Coolies from British India to the Sugar Colonies of the Dutch East Indies?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON), in reply, said, that no such information had been received by the Foreign Office.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. J. E. BARRETT, J.P.
  MR. M'CARTAN(for Mr. GILHOOLY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to legal proceedings at the Quarter Sessions, held at Skibbereen in October last, at which it was shown that Mr. John E. Barrett, agent to Mr. Gumbleton, and Justice of Peace for the County of Cork, falsified a rent receipt in order to procure the benefit of the Arrears Act for Mr. James Mahoney, a tenant to Mr. Gumbleton; whether Mr. Barrett made an affidavit that Mr. Mahoney owed arrears; whether, in the course of the proceedings referred to, that affidavit has been proved to be false; whether Judge Ferguson decided that Mr. Barrett had charged Mr. Mahoney a half-year's rent remitted by the Arrears Court; and if the above allegations are correct; and, whether Mr. Barrett's action will be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The matter referred to occurred in 1881, and
  252
  the dispute about it only arose when Mr. Barrett, as agent, sued for subsequent arrears in 1887. Judge Ferguson, who tried the case, found that Mr. Barret had not given credit to the tenant for a half-year's rent which had been paid, and therefore made a corresponding deduction when decreasing the amount of rent due. He, however, stated that he was clearly of opinion, and so stated openly in Court when giving judgment, that the matter in dispute which involved all the circumstances of the case was a mere mistake, and that no fraud was intended. Mr. Barrett did make the usual affidavit jointly with the tenant; but Judge Ferguson, in his Report to the Lord Chancellor, has not referred to the subject. The matter was then dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. He found that Mr. Barrett, acting as agent for Mr. Gumbleton, had made an alteration in the receipt, but without any intention of fraud, the alteration having been made openly and in good faith, Mr. Barrett believing that he was simply carrying out the intention of the Arrears Act. The Lord Chancellor thereupon decided there was nothing calling for further action on his part. The case of Mr. Byrne, late Collector General of Rates in Dublin, is materially different from this. In that case he inserted in his own tenants' receipt a false date for the day of payment of the rent, in order to bring within the Act cases that would otherwise be outside it—a matter regarded as especially serious in an officer whose public duties involved accuracy of accounts and dates. The date of payment was the date that regulated the right to the benefit of the Arrears Act, and Mr. Barrett did not alter that date.

  WAR OFFICE RE-ORGANIZATION— RECENT ORDER IN COUNCIL.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table the recent Order in Council defining the duties now to be assigned to the officers at the head of departments in the War Office? He further asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table Papers showing the present distribution of those duties, in order that the House might be able to judge of the changes?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Order in Council requires some verbal amendments; but as soon as they are made I propose to lay it on the Table, with the clauses defining the duties of the various officers of the Department. I will lay on the Table the old Orders in Council, and will see what I can do to meet the request of the right hon. Gentleman.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT) —THE PNEUMATIC DYNAMITE GUN.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the recent experiments reported to have been carried out in America, with the Pneumatic Dynamite Gun; and, whether any tests of it had been made, or are in contemplation, in this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The experiments in America have been carefully considered by the Ordnance Committee, and I hope it will be possible to carry out further experiments with this gun in this country in the Metropolis.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE METROPOLIS —TOWER HILL.
  MR. MONTAGUasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that a public meeting was held on Tower Hill, Whitechapel, on the 5th of February last; and, whether the Government recognize the right of the public to hold bonâ fide political meetings at that place?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Chief Commissioner that such a meeting did take place, but it was conducted in an orderly manner, and there was no cause for the interference of the police. The Government are not aware that the public have any right to hold meetings anywhere in the public thoroughfares; but the practice of the police has been not to interfere unless they have good reasons to fear a breach of the peace, an obstruction of traffic, or danger to property or person.

  POLICE (METROPOLIS)—POLICE-CONSTABLE BLOY.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Secretary
  254
  of State for the Home Department, Why Police-constable Bloy has been transferred to the Poplar District, and how long he will remain there?
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, whether Sir Charles Warren, before exonerating Police-constable Bloy, examined any witnesses except policemen; and, if so, what witnesses; whether, before issuing his Memorandum, the Chief Commissioner communicated with Mr. Baggallay; whether Mr. Baggallay requested to be furnished with a copy of the Memorandum; whether that request was complied with; and lastly, whether, as the public was somewhat interested in this matter, the Home Secretary would at once lay upon the Table copies of the Memorandum, and of the correspondence with Mr. Baggallay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): In answer to the Question on the Paper, I am informed by the Chief Commissioner that it has been, and is, the custom of the Service, when an officer had been found fault with by a magistrate, to remove that officer from the district of the Magistrate's Court. It is uncertain how long Police-constable Bloy will remain at Poplar. These are matters of ordinary police discipline, which are left to the discretion of the Commissioner. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, my answer to the first and second paragraphs is in the negative. In answer to the third paragraph, I have to say that the magistrate did not apply directly to the Commissioner for a copy of the Memorandum. If he had done so, I feel sure that his request would have been complied with. He asked for a copy through an Inspector, whose message was not received by the Commissioner until after the magistrate had made his remarks in Court. I do not think it would be useful, or to the public advantage, to lay on the Table copies of the Paper referred to.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: In consequence of the exceedingly unsatisfactory reply of the Home Secretary, I beg to give Notice that I shall, at the earliest opportunity, draw the attention of this House to the action of the Executive Government in the case of Constable Bloy, and move a Resolution.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—INSPECTION OF INHABITED HOUSES.
  MR. THORBURNasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the great amount of sickness and mortality resulting from insanitary dwellings, Her Majesty's Government will introduce a measure making it compulsory for owners of property to have a periodical inspection into the sanitary condition of inhabited houses?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, he was afraid that, looking to the amount of work already lying before the Government, they could hardly undertake to initiate legislation of the kind referred to.

  WAR OFFICE—1ST LANCASHIRE ENGINEER VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to a statement in The Liverpool Daily Post of the 8th instant, to the effect that a Submarine Mining Company, formed in connection with the 1st Lancashire Engineer Volunteers, is to be disbanded; and, if the statement be true, what steps can be taken to prevent the loss to the country of a body of highly skilled and efficient Volunteers upon which upwards of £2,000 has already been spent?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): In the opinion of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, it was of importance, for the unity of defence for the Mersey, that all the submarine miners of the locality should belong to the Mersey Division of the Royal Engineers' Submarine Miners. The colonel of the battalion having declined to assent to the transfer of the non-commissioned officers and men of the Submarine Mining Company to that corps, the only remaining course in the interests of military efficiency was to disband and re-constitute it. I am glad, however, to say that it is anticipated that all, or nearly all, of the members of the disbanded Company will take service in the new corps, so that the expenditure and pains taken in their training will not be lost.

  LAND (IRELAND)—THE "PLAN OF CAMPAIGN."
  MR. SCHWANN(for Mr. WADDY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the cases in which tenants in Ireland have put in operation the system of combination known as the "Plan of Campaign," stating the amount of rents originally claimed, the amounts offered by the tenants, the amounts finally accepted by the landlord; and, whether such amounts have been fixed by voluntary agreement between the parties, or by any official or legal authority?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Government cannot undertake to lay upon the Table a Return of the nature indicated.

  EGYPT—THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL AT CAIRO.
  MR. BRYCEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Judge Advocate General, in going to Cairo to press certain claims of the ex-Khedive Ismail against the Egyptian Government, went on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, or as the private agent of the ex-Khedive Ismail; or whether, if he went in the latter capacity, he received any, and what, permission or authorization from Her Majesty, or any person on behalf of Her Majesty, to undertake to press the claims of a private person against a Foreign Government?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Judge Advocate General went to Cairo in October last, I think it was as the agent of the ex-Khedive, and in his private capacity. In regard to the second part of the Question, I have to say that he did not apply for authorization from Her Majesty's Government, or to any person on behalf of the Government, and, therefore, did not receive any. It was known to all parties concerned that he was acting in his professional, as distinct from his official, capacity; and I believe it was also pretty well known that he had acted for the ex-Khedive in a professional capa-

  257
  city for a long time prior to his entrance into the Government.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether before the appointment of the present Judge Advocate General in 1885, there is any precedent for the holder of that Office continuing to practise as Counsel in the Courts of Law; and, whether he is aware of any case in which a Minister of the Crown, holding that or any similar Office under the Queen, has been retained as an advocate to prosecute a personal claim against a Foreign and friendly Government?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Prior to 1885, I am informed there were cases of holders of the Office of Judge Advocate General practising as Counsel in arbitrations, but not in Court. I am not aware of any case of the character mentioned in the last paragraph of the Question.
  MR. BRYCE: Do I understand that the Judge Advocate General went to Cairo without any communication whatever being made by him to the Head of Her Majesty's Government, and that Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge and no responsibility in the matter?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it is desirable that Notice should be given of Questions of this character. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be so good as to give Notice.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentlemen, I beg to give Notice that on the question of the administration of military law in the Army Estimates, or possibly on an earlier occasion, I will call the attention of the House to the whole of this subject.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Judge Advocate General continued to receive the emoluments of his office while he was in Cairo?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Judge Advocate General, in common with all other servants of the Crown, is entitled to a holiday. He spent that holiday in travelling from London to Cairo, and returning from Cairo to London.

  BELFAST A "CITY."
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If Her
  258
  Majesty's Government are able to comply with the Memorial presented from the Town Council of Belfast, praying that Belfast might have conferred on it the style and title of "City?"
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The question of conferring the title of "City" on the town of Belfast is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—RETURNS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he could state what were the undermentioned sums in connection with "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," up to 31st January, 1888; total sum sanctioned; sum applied for but refused; sum applied for respecting which no decision has been arrived at; and, sum sanctioned after modification of terms of purchase, with amount of such modification?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In reply to the hon. Member's Question, which my right hon. Friend has asked me to answer, I have to say that the total amount of advances sanctioned on application under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, up to the 31st of January last was £3,602,625. This includes advances to the amount of £131,455, which were refused on first application, but were subsequently granted. The advances applied for, but refused, amount to £390,004, while applications for advances to the amount of £548,186 are still under consideration.

  LONDON CORPORATION (CHARGES OF MALVERSATION).
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee, with power to take evidence, to investigate the allegations made by the Junior Member for Northampton in a letter dated 2nd December, 1887, and published in The Times 3rd December, 1887?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I need hardly say that I do not consider—however eminent the parties may be—that

  259
  in a dispute of the character to which the hon. Gentleman refers it would be fitting or proper that the House of Commons should appoint a Select Committee; and I am fortified in that view by the knowledge, officially conveyed to me, that the subject matter is before a Court of Law and will shortly be tried.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: What the right hon. Gentleman says is not quite accurate—I do not mean that he has not been so informed, but that there are no proceedings that will enable the investigation to take place. If the noble Marquess will acknowledge the letter signed "R. T. Gunton," which I have no means of proving, then I will undertake to raise the issue in a Court of Law.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will undertake to communicate at once with the Prime Minister on the subject.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as the result of the exhaustive inquiry which the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook to make during the Recess into the question of Friendly Societies, it is the intention of the Government either to propose the appointment of a Royal Commission, or to introduce in the course of the present Session any legislation dealing with the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question. As the hon. Member's Question indicates, I have given this subject considerable attention during the Recess. My inquiries have convinced me that, in any action we may take, a broad line of distinction must be maintained between the so-called Collecting Friendly Societies—which are nearly akin to the Industrial Assurance Companies—and the Friendly Societies proper. These two classes of Societies are essentially distinct in constitution and methods; and they must be dealt with on different principles. The need and the demand for reforms seem to be mainly on the side of the former—that is to say, the Collecting Friendly Societies. On the other hand, I am not at this moment prepared to propose further legislation with reference to such Bodies as the Affiliated Orders, Bodies which
  260
  have shown such remarkable powers of healthy growth and self-government, though the Government would carefully consider suggestions made to them on the subject generally. With regard to the Collecting Friendly Societies, the last step in the proceedings which have taken place was that a deputation representing a Congress of these Bodies recently waited on mo. It then appeared that a Bill embodying the proposals of these Societies for their own reform was about to be introduced by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), and I undertook that if the measure were confined to the Collecting Societies the Government would agree to a second reading on condition of the Bill being referred to a Select Committee, where the whole subject might be fully threshed out.

  ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW (IRELAND)—"BLUNT v. BYRNE."
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in one of the morning papers that in the trial in which Mr. Blunt appeared on Saturday, he stated that he had been without food from the day preceding; whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any inquiry into that statement; and, if it turns out that the facts are true, whether they are to be attributed to negligence or wilful misconduct on the part of any officials?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that no conversation such as that referred to in the newspaper took place in the Court at all. The statement was brought to the notice of the Judge, who said there was no foundation whatever for the newspaper report; and, as regards the original allegation, there is no proof of it.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SUPPRESSION OF NATIONAL LEAGUE BRANCHES.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question, of which he had given private Notice—namely, How

  261
  many branches of the Irish National League had been suppressed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Association known as the Irish National League has been suppressed in the folio wing districts:—the County of Clare, the County of Kerry; the Baronies of Condons, Clangibbon, Duhallow, West Muskerry, in the County of Cork; the Baronies of Leitrim, and Loughrea, in the County of Galway; and the Barony of Shelburne, in County Wexford. I cannot, however, undertake to give the number of the branches affected thereby. No doubt, the hon. Member will be able to obtain all the information he requires as to the suppressed branches at the office of the National League.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purport of my Question. I did not ask how many branches of the National League had been suppressed on paper. What I want to know is how many have been suppressed in reality? How many have been so suppressed that the meetings of those branches are held or have been held since the date of their alleged suppression?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information he asks for.

  EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY.
  In reply to Mr. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he had given Notice to introduce a Bill to amend the law on this subject on Thursday week, and he hoped that soon after that time it would be in print.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE METROPOLIS.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Mr. Speaker, as I see the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) in his place, I wish to refer to a suggestion which he made last Thursday. He was good enough to suggest that the debate on the Trafalgar Square incidents would be taken with greater convenience to the House as a substantive
  262
  Motion. The information has been conveyed to me that there is a great probability that the debate on the Address will be completed in the course of the present week. If that should be so, I propose that the discussion of the substantive Motion with reference to Trafalgar Square should be taken on Monday next.

PRIVILEGE.
  PRIVILEGE (WRONGFUL ARREST OF MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. PICTON: I desire to raise a question of Privilege as regards the recent arrest of Members of this House, and I purpose to conclude with a motion that a breach of the Privilege of Parliament has been committed. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for more than a very few minutes; but it is very important that this question should be brought forward. The House of Commons used to fear the tyranny of the Crown; it used to fear invasions of its rights by privileged orders of society. No such fear is now entertained; but there is a fear lest a temporary majority may, for a few years, exercise a tyranny that may, perhaps; in some cases, become insupportable.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member seems about to refer to a case of Privilege, affecting, as I understand him, three hon. Members of this House. I understood from the hon. Member privately that the main purport of his Motion was to allude to the arrest of a certain Member of this House without any justification. If the hon. Member proposes to refer to the arrest of the hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. Pyne) and the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly), he would not, in my opinion, be within Privilege. Privilege cannot be pleaded to an arrest on a criminal charge, nor to the administration of criminal justice. But with regard to the case of the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) there is a clear case demanding explanation, and in that matter the hon. Member is perfectly within his right in calling it a matter of Privilege, and be taking precedence.
    MR. PARNELL: I submit, Sir, with great deference, that the House

    263
    has not yet any information before it as to the case of the two hon. Members for West Waterford (Mr. Pyne) and West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly). It would be very proper for the Government to give us that information, and if they are in a position to tell us that those hon. Members had been arrested on a criminal charge the Government would have the benefit of that fact. [Cries of" Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member evidently was not in the House when I read the official intimation that those hon. Members had been arrested on a criminal charge.
    MR. PICTON: Of course I will follow your ruling, Sir, and will confine myself to the case of the hon. Member for North Monaghan; but I will venture to say that the House ought to bear in mind the danger that may arise from occasional excesses of power on the part of a temporary majority. The question is one of equal interest to both sides of the House, and to both political Parties, and they ought to be on their guard against such dangers. Last Thursday and Friday we had an experience in this House that I think must be without precedent since the days of Pride's Purge. All the doors and avenues of the House were haunted by officers of the law—constables and detectives—on the look-out to arrest certain hon. Members of this House. Any hon. Member who possessed the remotest resemblance, either in features, in form, or in size, to the Members wanted, had to use the greatest care in leaving the House or in coming in lest he should be pounced upon. The House during those two days seemed to be a kind of Alsatia or refuge for criminals. Outside the portals of the House the officers of the law were lying in wait to seize upon their victims. I suppose that I should not be in Order in alluding to an easy remedy for such a state of things; but I will take another opportunity of doing so. All, however, will see that there is considerable danger of mistaking one hon. Member for another, especially in the uncertain light of the gas; and, as a matter of fact, a mistake was made, and in broad daylight. The hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien), having come down to the House early to attend to his correspondence, left the House again, intending
    264
    to return speedily. As soon as he had gone outside the gates of Palace Yard a detective came up to him and said—"I beg your pardon, Sir, but I have a warrant for your arrest." Then the hon. Member said—"Produce your warrant." The officer, however, was not in possession of the warrant, and called to a colleague and asked him to fetch it; then, without waiting for it, or asking the name of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, the officer persuaded him by gentle force to come with him some distance up Parliament Street. Of course, it was manifest to all around that the hon. Gentleman was under arrest. The mistake having been made known by another detective to Constable M'lntyre, who had hold of the hon. Member, that officer said to him—"I beg your pardon, if I have made a mistake, and I offer an apology." But the hon. Member for North Monaghan was something of the mind of St. Paul in similar circumstances, and he said—"They have arrested me openly, uncondemned, being a Member of Parliament, and now do they thrust me, Sir, aside privily? nay, verily." I think the hon. Member was within his right in declining a personal apology; but it was not for the individual Member who was thus affronted to take upon him-himself to gain the remedy that was due to the authority and dignity of the House itself. That is for the House itself, and for my own part, it is on behalf of the House, and not merely of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, that I am raising this question now. I should like to call attention to the exceedingly severe terms in which the House formerly condemned any attempt to obstruct, assault, or insult any Member coming to or going from the House. On the 12th of April, 1733, it was resolved—
    "That the assaulting, insulting, or menacing any Member of this House in his coming to or going from the House, or on account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the Privilege of this House, and a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and a high crime and misdemeanour."
    On the 1st of June, 1780, it was resolved—
    "It is a gross breach of the Privileges of this House for any person to obstruct or insult Members of this House in coming to or going from this House."

    265
    I think it will be agreed that this Resolution applies to the present case. It is clear that a mistake has been made and an apology offered for the mistake; but that mistake itself ought not to have been made. The officer might easily have obtained exact information; and why did he not produce his warrant? If he had done so Mr. O'Brien would have seen at once the name that was upon it, and would have shown that there was a mistake. I think the difficulty made about producing the warrants in some of these cases is scarcely Constitutional. When a subject of Her Majesty is suddenly informed that he is under arrest, surely he ought to have a warrant shown to him to justify his detention. The constable ought to have informed himself of the figure and likeness of the person against whom the warrant was issued with sufficient accuracy to prevent an act of injustice from being committed. I maintain that a gross insult has been committed upon an hon. Member of the House, and I trust that the House will not pass it by simply because the hon. Member arrested belongs to a particular Party. I remember that when I was at school, when we saw one boy pommeling another, we would cry out to the pommeler, "Hit him hard, he's Irish." That is the only apology I can offer. This boyish habit did not result from any confidence in the superior hardness of the Irish, but rather from a certain antipathy of race. I may say that those wore my unregenerate days. In a case like the present I am sure that the House will not allow any kind of distinction to be made between Irish Representatives and others; they will never think of literally applying the words of the Prime Minister—namely, that one of his Colleagues is worth the whole of the 85 Irish Members. I hope, therefore, that this matter will be treated with seriousness. We wish to take such a course as will insure that in the case of any hon. Member being, unfortunately, arrested the constable should produce his warrant at once, and make sure that he has got hold of the right man. The gross carelessness in this case, I think, is a fault which demands an ample apology, not to the individual Member concerned alone, but to the House itself. I beg,
    266
    therefore, to move the following Resolution:—
    "That the wrongful arrest of Mr. P. O'Brien, a Member of this House, in going from the House, on Friday, Feb. 10, was a high infringement of the Privileges of Parliament."
    MR. M'LAREN:—I beg leave to second the Motion. If it had not been the case that I was present at the arrest of one of the three hon. Members, probable I should not have ventured to trouble the House. I feel very strongly that the House should take as strong a view as possible of this question, and treat as a breach of Privilege the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien). There are two circumstances in connection with the arrest of the other two hon. Members which, doubtless, you, Mr. Speaker, are not aware of, and which, with all respect, I should like to submit. The hon. Member for West Waterford (Mr. Pyne) maintains that he was actually within the precincts of the House at the time he was arrested.
    MR. SPEAKER: the arrest of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Waterford is not before the House. It is my duty to keep the attention of the House confined to the particular question of Privilege raised—namely, the arrest of the hon. Member for North Monaghan. Of course, if the hon. Member desires to bring forward in a proper way the arrest of the hon. Member for West Waterford it is competent for him to do so; but it is impossible for him to bring it forward now on the particular question of breach of Privilege which has been raised by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton).
    MR. M'LAREN: Then I will not proceed further with the remarks I intended to offer, but I will confine myself to the immediate question before the House. In the case of the hon. Member for North Monaghan it is said not only were there detectives surrounding the House, but they were actually in the building within the precincts of the House; and, in these circumstances, I venture to think the breach of Privilege in the present case becomes a very serious one indeed. The police constables may be doing their duty by arresting Members of Parliament in the streets; but to arrest them when within

    267
    the precincts of Palace Yard, as in this instance, is to commit a still greater breach of Privilege. My hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan has Buffered a very serious indignity indeed, and was put to great personal inconvenience. It is no light matter for a Member of Parliament to be arrested in the street within a stone's throw of Palace Yard, and it is all the worse in this case, because the hon. Member was not guilty of any offence at all. A Member of Parliament ought not to be liable to be treated in the way complained of in respect of political offences, for it was merely a political offence, and not a crime, with which the hon. Member for North Monaghan was charged. Of course, if a Member of Parliament commit a crime he must be expected to receive the same treatment as other criminals; but in this case I think a distinction should be drawn between an arrest for the commission of a real crime and political offences. It is for the interest and dignity of Parliament to purge itself from all complicity with persons who are guilty of crime, and not to extend its indulgence to them; but my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan, although previously under a sentence of seven months' imprisonment, was even then guilty of no crime, but simply of a political offence. Surely, for an alleged offence on the part of the hon. Member for West Cork, the police were not entitled to drag the hon. Member for North Monaghan through the streets as if he were a common pickpocket. Although my hon. Friend has suffered this great indignity, I do not think that any hon. Member of this House or any man in the country will think the worse of him in consequence; nor even for the sentence of seven months' imprisonment which has been passed upon him. It is our duty to resent as strongly as possible the fact not only that he should have been arrested on a false charge, but that any hon. Member should be arrested for a political offence at all. I and many other English and Scotch Members are very proud to call Irish Members who are undergoing imprisonment our friends, and we feel that they should not be arrested on such charges. The Government will do well, instead of putting Irish Members in prison, to alter their conduct.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not keeping to the Question before the House. He is discussing the difference between political and other offences.
    MR. M'LAREN: I will only say, in conclusion, that it is clearly proved there was no pretence for denying that an hon. Member has been arrested wrongfully. I hope the House will regard it as a serious breach of its Privileges.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the wrongful arrest of Mr. Patrick O'Brien, a Member of this House, in going from the House on Friday, 10th February, was a high infringement of the Privilege of Parliament."—(Mr. Picton.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I do not propose to follow in any way the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire (Mr. M'Laren), who seconded the Motion, nor do I propose to deal with the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). I wish to repudiate in the strongest language possible the doctrine that any difference should be made as between the hon. Member who has just been subjected to an unfortunate indignity in consequence of a mistake, and who represents a constituency in the Sister Island, and any other hon. Member. No such idea certainly entered my mind, nor, so far as I know, that of any Member of the Government. I entirely agree that this I question of Privilege does not concern the individual Member whose personal dignity may have been assailed, or to whom personal discomfort may have been caused; the Privilege is really the Privilege of the House. Now, about the facts I do not think there is the slightest doubt. The hon. Member for Leicester has stated with perfect accuracy that there was a mistake. He went on to say that there ought not to have been a mistake. I entirely agree with him. I am hardly aware of any case in which a mistake can be regarded as permissible. It was a mistake, certainly, on the part of the officer in fault, but the mistake was not intentional. I hold in my hand a Report, carefully made by the heads of the police, which I instantly called for when I heard of

    269
    the circumstance. I am informed that the sergeant in question, Sergeant M'Intyre, was told—not himself having personal acquaintance with either of the hon. Members concerned—that the gentleman leaving the precincts of the House was the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly)—[An hon. MEMBER: Who told him?] A constable who was on duty in the precincts of the House informed him that that was the gentleman against whom there was a warrant. The sergeant followed the hon. Member, and, lifting his hat, addressed him interrogatively, "Mr. Gilhooly?" to which the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) nodded his head without making any reply. Thereupon the sergeant informed him that there was a warrant out for his arrest, and that he must consider himself in custody, and asked him to accompany him to Scotland Yard. The sergeant sent an officer to fetch the warrant, which was in the custody of another constable. Well, every police constable cannot have the warrant in his possession. The constable went to get it, and he came back in the course of a minute or two with the warrant in his possession. In the meantime the sergeant was informed that he had made a mistake, and that the hon. Member who was then in custody was not the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly), but the hon. Member for North Monaghan. The sergeant immediately apologized to the hon. Member, and said he would not detain him any longer. I might add that at first the officer offered to convey the hon. Member to Scotland Yard in a cab. The hon. Member, however, preferred going on foot. I do not defend what has been done; of course, it was a most unfortunate and most regrettable mistake. The Commissioner of Police, the moment he heard of the circumstance, sent Inspector Littechild to the hon. Member to offer him a sincere and absolute apology. I—in so far as I represent the Police Force, though I take no blame to myself in the matter—I repeat, in the name of the Force and in the name of the Government, my sincere apologies and great regret to the hon. Member for the mistake that has been made. I do not know that anything more is called for from the House. I do not know that anything more is called for on the part of the Government. No
    270
    doubt, Members are free from molestation and arrest except in criminal cases. There was no intentional breach of Privilege. About that there can be no doubt whatever. The officer who made this unhappy mistake supposed he was dealing with an hon. Member with reference to whom no question of Privilege would have arisen, as there was a warrant in a criminal matter against him. There was no intention to commit a breach of Privilege of the House. The police having made their apologies, and I having offered apologies to the hon. Member on behalf of the Government, I leave it to the House to say whether the complaint made by the hon. Member is not now entirely met.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What the Home Secretary has said is perfectly true. We are here not to consider the question of personal indignity offered to an individual Member, but what is due to the dignity of the House under the circumstances. The apology to the particular Member, whether on the part of the police or the Home Secretary—that is one thing, and may be adequate; but what the House has to consider is, how this transaction came to occur, and what precautions must be taken in the future against its occurring again; because I am afraid that we are at the beginning of a chapter at which these arrests of Members of the House of Commons are to become habitual. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in consequence of the policy in which we are embarked. At all events, it is of some importance that the Government should at least arrest the right man. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would care much about that, because he announces that people have been convicted when they have not been convicted; but it is desirable that we should have some precautions as to who is to be arrested at the instance of the Government among the Members who sit in this House. Now, the arrest was a singular one. The Home Secretary says that one sergeant, who did not know the person to be arrested, told another sergeant that he—the hon. Member for North Monaghan—was the person who ought to be arrested.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I beg pardon—I did, not say that. I said that a constable

    271
    professing to know the hon. Member who was to be arrested informed Sergeant M'Intyre that that was Mr. Gilhooly.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, it appears I am mixing up two sergeants, instead of one constable and one sergeant. One constable, who does not know the man who is to be arrested, informs a sergeant that there is the man, whereupon the sergeant does arrest him, and arrests the wrong man. That is the state of things in which we all are at the present moment. I do not know how many warrants the Chief Secretary for Ireland may have out just at this moment; but anybody is liable to be arrested if some constable who does Dot know the individual to be arrested tells somebody else—"That is the person to be arrested." Now, in my opinion, this is a thing which ought to be inquired into by the House. We ought to know what are to be the forms and proceedings with future arrests of Members of this House. It is quite obvious that this is a serious matter. When the Government attempt to arrest a Member of this House, either within the precincts or immediately adjoining the precincts, surely it is not too much to expect that they should provide constables for that service who know the persons of Members. There should be no difficulty, I imagine, in securing the services of detectives or others who are acquainted with the persons it is intended to arrest. There seems, on the part of somebody or other, to be a very gross act of negligence and carelessness—that they should have employed for a service of this kind persons not properly informed on the subject. Instead of doing these things in this haphazard, ramshackle way, it is desirable there should be some understanding as to what course of proceeding is to be taken in arresting Members of this House. There is the case, exceedingly well known, of Lord Cochrane. There was no doubt whatever in his case. He was extremely well known. The proper course was taken—Lord Cochrane was arrested within the precincts of the House; but the Government of the day, regarding the arrest as a serious matter, took what I believe to have been the proper Parliamentary and Constitutional course of referring the question to a Committee of Privileges of this
    272
    House. It is only a night or two ago that the House appointed the Committee of Privileges. It is one of the first proceedings of this House to appoint the Committee of Privileges. It is to that Committee of Privileges, if there is any question at all with reference to the treatment of Members, that that question ought to be referred. That was done by the Government in the year 1814 or 1815 in Lord Cochrane's case. The Committee in that case reported that, after an examination of the circumstances, they were of opinion that there was no ground for taking any further action against the person incriminated, who happened to be in that case the Marshal of the Court. It may be that the Committee of Privileges here, having heard the circumstances, will arrive at the same decision; but the Committee of Privileges might do something else. They might recommend to you, Mr. Speaker, or the Government, certain forms and proceedings in the case of the arrest of Members of this House which might prevent the scandal which has been committed in this case, and would insure that we should have some approach to decency in procedure of this kind. That would be an extremely proper thing for the Committee of Privileges to inquire into. They would inquire, first, whether due caution and care had been taken in this particular case with reference to the arrest of this particular Member. They might, or they might not, come to the conclusion that it required no notice from the House under the particular circumstances of the case. Above all, the Committee of Privileges would do that which would be extremely useful to the dignity of the House and to the respect in which the House of Commons should be held in the country if they would recommend some course of procedure in the future which will obviate that which I feel is a great indignity and a scandal in the transaction which has taken place.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) sat down without indicating to the House what question of Privilege has possibly arisen which can be referred to the Committee. I will venture, in a few words, to recall to the mind of the House what

    273
    the position of the matter is. The police officer has made an unfortunate mistake. Her Majesty's Government—who, as a Government, can give no guarantee (any more than the right hon. Gentleman could give any guarantee when he was Home Secretary) that the police shall make no mistake—have expressed their regret for the mistake, and the Chief Commissioner of Police, through the mouth of the Home Secretary, has also apologized. Now, let the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the question of Privilege is that can possibly arise. The matter of Privilege was disposed of when the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) admitted that it was a mistake. He did not suggest that any superior or inferior officer intended to arrest a man who was not named in the warrant. The right hon. Gentleman is an esteemed lawyer, and I ask him what the form of proceeding is? First, there must be an offence against the Criminal Law. The police constable had nothing to do with that. Then there must be a charge, and there must be a warrant. There is the charge and the warrant; and a Member of Parliament, as you have said, Sir, to-day from the Chair—and, if I may be allowed, I endorse your statement—has no privilege or protection whatever. Now, the right hon. Gentleman is a great Constitutional lawyer, and he referred to the case of Lord Cochrane. That has nothing to do with this matter at all. Lord Cochrane, as a Privy Councillor, was sitting on one of the Benches of this House, or rather the old House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not say that he was a Privy Councillor. He was not a Privy Councillor.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I referred to the Report of the Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the diary of Lord Colchester he will find that I am correct.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: He gat on the Privy Council as a Councillor's Bench; but it did not follow that he was a Privy Councillor.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I do not think it necessary to go into this point, and I will assume that I was wrong there. Lord Cochrane was sitting is the House when arrested, and the question referred to the Committee of Privileges was whether persons sitting
    274
    in the House were liable to arrest, and did the arrest create a question of Privilege. The Report of the Committee was that there was no breach of the Privileges of the House; and Mr. Speaker Abbott laid it down that the House of Commons Chamber afforded no Privilege unless the Speaker was in the Chair and the Mace upon the Table. I appeal to the House, and to every lawyer in it, what possible question of Privilege can arise here? There has been a mistake—that mistake has been apologized for; and if the hon. Member desires to take proceedings he has a remedy. A mistake having been committed, and an apology having been made, no question of Privilege has occurred. So far as this House is concerned, nobody alleging that there is any real question to go to the Committee, I humbly submit that—unless the right hon. Gentleman will give the Government some prescription by which the Government can insure that no policeman will ever make a mistake again—as there is no matter for inquiry, after the explanation given by the Home Secretary, and after the illustrations given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, there is no question of Privilege involved. This being the state of things, if I am in Order, I will move an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton).
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the first word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House regrets that an indignity should have been offered to the honourable Member for North Monaghan; but, considering it to have been a mistake on the part of the Police Officer, does not think it necessary to proceed further with the matter."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I am rather surprised at one statement that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General made, that because the arrest was a mistake, as it was admitted to be by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), it was clear that there was no question of Privilege in the case. I cannot understand that argument. I maintain that it is impossible to contradict this statement—that the act of arrest of itself

    275
    was a distinct breach of Privilege. It was, in fact, an arrest without any legal process whatever. It may be that the circumstances under which that breach of Privilege took place—namely, that it was a mistake—may or may not be a sufficient reason for passing the matter by without further notice; but I entirely contravene my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion, that it is the less a breach of Privilege because the arrest was made under a mistake. My hon. and learned Friend suggests that the Home Secretary, having for himself and his Government, and also in the name of the Police Force, apologized for the mistake, that there ought to be an end of the matter. I will point out to the House that that is not the way in which questions of this kind have, so far as I know, in any previous case been treated by the House of Commons. It has uniformly been the course to refer all questions of this nature to the consideration of the Committee of Privileges, whose functions are directed to this subject, and the reason is obvious—namely, that there shall remain a perfect record of the inquiry, and of the circumstances of the case which gave rise to such inquiry. Before such a tribunal the circumstances can be gone into, and they become a permanent record in the Report of the Committee. As to what the Committee may report in this case I do not venture to speculate. It would be impertinent to do so. I make no suggestion. They may be of opinion that, under the circumstances, no further action need be taken; but before I sit down I should like to make reference to another point in this case. After all, assuming it to have been a mistake—accepting that—it certainly was a clumsy and inexcusable mistake. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby did not mistake the position of affairs as explained by the Home Secretary, and the House will be good enough to bear in mind that it has no authentic account as to how the arrest was brought about, but merely the statement of the Home Secretary, who receives it merely from the constables without further inquiry. What an extraordinary statement that is—that the constable did not know the hon. Member.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I have already corrected the right hon. Member for
    276
    Derby (Sir William Harcourt) when he made that statement, and I would really ask the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Charles Russell) to observe that the constable did know.
    An hon. MEMBER: Then there is no mistake.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The constable mentioned it to the sergeant.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: It appears to me that the explanation of the Home Secretary makes the matter more confused and difficult than it was before. The statement now made differs altogether from that which was originally-made. We have now the corrected and amended statement that a constable who did know pointed out the wrong man. It now seems that a constable, who did not know the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly), pointed out the hon. Member for North Monaghan. (Mr. Patrick O'Brien) as the hon. Member for West Cork to a sergeant who did not pretend to know either one or the other. I should have thought that in this delicate and important matter moderate care ought to have been taken by the Police Authorities to put warrants into the hands of sergeants, police constables, or detectives, who had, at least, taken previous pains to identify the persons to be arrested. The extraordinary part of the story does not end there. It now appears upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) that the sergeant who proceeded to make the arrest, and thereby to commit an assault upon a Member of this House, and thus was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House, made the arrest without having possession of the warrant. Again, I say, that is a matter proper to be inquired into by the Committee of Privileges. We do not know yet where that warrant was; whether it was ever in the control or within easy reach of the arresting constable; we do not know in whose custody it was. It is certainly a new doctrine that an officer without the legal document in his possession, or within his reach, can arrest a man upon a warrant, that warrant being in the possession of somebody else. It seems tome, therefore, that this case, in accordance with the ordinary procedure of this House in other cases, ought to be referred to the Committee of Privileges to report upon. Such an inquiry would, at all

    277
    events, secure two things—first, an accurate statement, which we clearly have not now before the House, of the circumstances of the arrest; and, secondly, a permanent and authentic record of the opinion of this House upon the transaction and the circumstances attending the transaction.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I should not have intervened in this debate but for the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The hon. and learned Attorney General asks what is the breach of Privilege to be inquired into. I will suggest that the breach of Privilege really consists in the insulting indignity put upon Members of the House in consequence of surrounding the House with a number of detectives not sufficiently instructed as to the persons they are to arrest, and acting upon information, perhaps, maliciously given. The explanation of the Home Secretary makes it clear that the information was maliciously given. The right hon. Gentleman has himself suggested that the constable wilfully pointed out another Member, knowing that he was the wrong man. [A laugh.] I am sorry that the Home Secretary should think it necessary to treat this as a laughing matter. I feel ashamed that on Friday the House of Commons should have put itself into a lower position than any Parliamentary Assembly in Europe, where precautions are taken to avoid the possibility of insult being offered to their Members. Our Parliamentary morality must have, indeed, fallen low, if hon. Gentlemen will permit insults to be offered to a fellow-Member simply because he is a political opponent, which they would not tolerate if offered to a Member sitting on their own side of the House. It was contended that the arrest without cause of a Member of that House being by mistake, there was no broach of privilege. I venture to deny that contention. In former days there were scores of cases where arrests had been made of servants of Members, which were defended on the ground that the guilty persons did not know they wore servants of Members. But in every case the House exacted an apology, and made the offenders pay the fees of the Sergeant-at-Arms. [An hon. MEMBER: This was only an Irish Member.] Oh, we are not in Ireland. I protest against
    278
    the whole unworthy fashion in which the arrests of Irish Members were effected, and against the carelessness shown by those who instructed the police of the dignity of that House. The constituents who send us here are more careful of the dignity of the House than Her Majesty's Ministers; and they repudiated the notion that, for some matter made criminal by the House, the House should be surrounded, and in its very Lobbies officers of the detective force should be placed, not for the purpose of protecting Members of the House, but of spying upon the whole of them in order to find out who is the unfortunate Member against whom a warrant has been issued. I am afraid that they have now made themselves a bye word in Europe by arresting the wrong man.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: There were some words which fell from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) from which I so dissent, that I wish to detain the House for a few moments. The question we have to determine is whether a breach of the Privileges of the House has been committed. I do not gather from my hon. and learned Friend what is the breach of Privilege which he states has been committed. [Cries of"No! "] It is true that the so-called arrest of a Member took place in the neighbourhood of this House. But as a matter of principle it would be the same if made in any other part of the country, however distant from this House—[Cries of"No!"]—yes; that is so in regard to such question of Privilege. My hon. and learned Friend does not base his suggestions upon the arrest having been made within this House, or within the precincts of the House. Even if it did raise a matter of Privilege, the point is whether an hon. Gentleman who is a Member of this House has been stopped in a public thoroughfare unintentionally through having been mistaken for another person. I venture to say that a Member has no more protection than the humblest subject of the Queen from a mistaken arrest in reference to a criminal charge. My hon; and learned Friend the Member for Hackney has confused two matters which are entirely distinct. Suppose there was an absence of warrant. That is not a question of Privilege, and would equally apply to the poorest person.

    279
    Suppose it is pointed out that the constable making the arrest did not know the individual who was to be arrested, and so makes a mistake; that applies equally to the humblest person. It may be a matter deserving of inquiry, or even, of censure of the delinquent, but it is not a matter of Privilege. What is the Privilege which has been infringed? [Mr. PICTON: Going from the House.] Now, I know what it is that is claimed as a Privilege. Will my hon. and learned Friend, or any Constitutional lawyer, assert that there is any Privilege for any Member, either inside or outside of this House, against a criminal process? The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has confused the well-known Privilege against civil process, which even applies to the servants of Members, with Privilege against criminal process.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman permit me to explain? My point was that there was no charge, criminal or otherwise, against the hon. Member for North Monaghan.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: That makes it clearer. Where, then, is the Privilege greater than the Privilege which attaches to the humblest man in the street who may be mistakenly arrested? I am astonished that an hon. Member should, under such circumstances, claim Privilege and the right to be protected from a mistake more than any other man who is innocent. There is no privilege on the part of Members of this House against being arrested on a criminal charge more than that which is possessed by the humblest of Her Majesty's subjects. And yet we are asked specially to protect hon. Members of this House from the liability of a mistake being committed. That is certainly not a democratic view of the question, and I hope the House will forgive me for having called its attention to what the real nature of the issue is.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I rise, Sir, to speak upon the Amendment which has been moved by the Attorney General, and I rise, at the same time, to defend the Attorney General and the Home Secretary from their most indiscreet adviser. If there was a doubt whether this question ought to go before the Committee of Privileges, there can be no doubt now. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for
    280
    Bury (Sir Henry James) has struck at the whole Privileges of this House. He has said that Members of this House have no Privileges, covering that statement by an extraordinary fallacy with respect to criminal process, that they have no Privileges different from those possessed by any other person. Sir, I challenge that statement altogether. It is a statement without a shadow of foundation. The truth is that a Member of Parliament has Privilege against arrest altogether, and under all circumstances, unless it be for criminal process properly directed against himself. That is the doctrine. Here is a case of a Member of Parliament who has been arrested, there being no criminal process properly directed against him. Consequently, the whole doctrine of the Privilege of a Member of Parliament against arrest comes into full force. The moment you have not got distinctive criminal process he has Privilege from arrest. That is the doctrine of Privilege; and how so distinguished a lawyer as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury could have fallen into so palpable a fallacy I cannot conceive. You have a man in the position of my right hon. and learned Friend coming forward and denying what the Government have practically admitted. The Home Secretary did not dispute or deny for one moment that this is a breach of Privilege; but now the Liberal Unionists, who are always in advance of their allies, come forward. If there is some reactionary doctrine, something that will strike against the liberties of Parliament, my right hon. and learned Friend will always be to the fore. I hope the Government will not allow themselves to be led into these imprudent excesses. The Government are going quite fast enough; but if they took my right hon. and learned Friend for their counsel, they would have every man on this side of the House arrested. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] My right hon. and learned Friend has got a disciple already. As my hon. and learned Friend near me has said, the House of Commons has never dealt with these matters in this harum-scarum sort of way, and the wisdom of our ancestors ought to be protected as against an occurrence of this kind. It is seldom that the Privileges of this House have been attacked. There may have been

    281
    a question before the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury; but now we cannot escape an inquiry, because the Privileges of this House must be ascertained upon the challenge which he has made. I hope, therefore, that the course will be taken which was followed in the cases of Mr. Wellesley Pole and Lord Cochrane. In these cases the House, instead of discussing the matter on the floor of the House, consented to send them to the Committee of Privileges. Whenever a case of the kind has occurred, the House has, for the sake of its own dignity, referred it to the Committee of Privileges. The hon. and learned Attorney General put to me a very proper and pertinent question—namely, what it is I want to refer to the Committee of Privileges? I want to refer exactly what was referred in the case of Lord Cochrane—whether or not, in the circumstances, any action should be taken on the matter by this House? The Committee of Privileges in Lord Cochrane's case, having inquired into the matter, reported to the House that there was no call for the interposition of the House. That is exactly what may be reported in this case, not that I think the Committee, or any half-a-dozen Members of this House, would come to such a conclusion as that stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury—namely, that there has been no breach of Privilege committed. I do not think that, excepting my right hon. and learned Friend, there is a man in this House who would come to that conclusion. The Home Secretary did not come to that conclusion, for he admitted that it was a breach of Privilege; and until I hear someone who has, I will say that no one but my right hon. and learned Friend holds such an opinion. The case is this—whether, there being a breach of Privilege, it is such a breach as calls for the action of this House? It might be that the Committee would come to the conclusion that was come to in Lord Cochrane's case. Then there is this further matter to be referred to the Committee, and that is the taking of proper precautions that things of this kind shall not recur in future. I do not think that we can possibly accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General, more especially after the chal-
    282
    lenge thrown out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: I hope the House will believe me when I say that if I had had my own choice I would have preferred some other occasion than this on which to address it for the first time, particularly as this matter is, to a considerable extent, personal to myself; but I feel that it is due to the House that it should, as far as I can, be put in possession of the full facts. I wish to make one very important correction in the version of my arrest which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), who, I presume, received his brief from the police officer concerned. The officer did not say to me that he thought I was Mr. Gilhooly. If he had done so, I think the House will believe me when I say that I should not have courted the company of the officer to Scotland Yard. What the officer did say—and in a low voice, too—just as I stepped from the Gate was—"I beg your pardon, Sir; I have a warrant for your arrest, and I require you to come with me to Scotland Yard." I said to the officer—"Produce your warrant," and the officer then called out to another who stood at some distance—whose name, I am told, was Sergeant Sweeney—"Go back for the warrant." Touching me on the arm, the officer then said—"Come this way, Sir." Well, I went, and accompanied the officer along the street. It may be asked why I did so without hearing the warrant read. I will explain. I am known in Ireland as what they call, in the Balfourian sense of the term, a criminal—aye, a double-dyed criminal. I have two sentences to serve with hard labour, and I would not be in the least surprised if I had a third added. But why do I expect a third? I will tell the House. On the conclusion of my second trial, when I was found guilty, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment for telling the rack-rented tenantry of the counties of Kilkenny and Carlow not to pay their rack-rents, and for telling the tenantry of Lord Monck not to purchase land at 17 years' purchase with British money—rack-rents which would be equal to 30 years' purchase at a proper rental—when I was sentenced, and after I had appealed,

    283
    so little did I think myself a criminal that I walked from the Court and repeated to the people word for word the advice which I had given, and for which I had got three months' imprisonment. I afterwards said to my friends that I would not be in the least surprised if, before I reached Dublin, or before getting to London, at the outside, I was arrested again. When, therefore, the officer came up to me, I thought he was about to arrest me on a third charge. That is the explanation I have to give for accompanying the officer without demanding that the warrant should first be read. I was also aware that my hon. Friend the Member for West Waterford (Mr. Pyne) had been pushed off the precincts of the House, and had been taken forcibly into custody, without the warrant having been read; and I was not, therefore, prepared for a street scuffle with the servants of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has offered an apology to me. I do not feel that any apology whatever is due to me. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the indignity which has been cast upon me. All the indignity which this infamous Government could cast upon me they have already cast, and I should not have troubled the House with this matter if it had been left to my choice. I am not wanting in respect for this honourable House and its great traditions; but I do not pretend to have that respect which British citizens have, and rightly have, for it. Holding that view, I asked the officer, and, as a Member of Parliament, I think I had a right to ask, what was the name of his superior officer. I think that many hon. Members of this House will think it worth while to try the issue as to what extent their Privileges were affected. While I respect British feeling as to the traditions of this House, I confess I am much more concerned about the dignity of the House which—please God—we shall soon have open in Ireland, and I must be content to leave to English Members, and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), the duty of dealing with this case so far as it affects, or may affect, their liberties and the dignity of Parliament. I have nothing more to add. I have been very reluctant indeed, in the absence of
    284
    the officer who was the second party to the case, and who cannot be heard in this House, to push anything strongly against him. I should consider myself guilty of mean and contemptible conduct similar to that from which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) suffered at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), when he had him under lock and key, if I were to attack the officer in his absence. I would prefer to meet him in another place, and face to face, and state my version of the case on oath before a British jury. I scorn to take advantage of him in a place where his voice cannot be heard. I wish, further, to lay stress on the fact that both the officer who arrested me and the officer who was sent back for the warrant refused to give me the name of their superior officer. Now, if they felt that their conduct was above-board in this case, and if Sergeant M'Intyre felt that he addressed me as Mr. Gilhooly, why did they hesitate to give me the name, and why should there have been the necessity for me to return to the House and appeal to the officer in charge of the police there to try and get it? I was arrested without a warrant. The officer who was sent from the Department to apologize to me subsequently told me in the Lobby that as he understood his duty, and as the Metropolitan Police understood theirs, a warrant delivered to any officer of the Metropolitan Police is a warrant to all of them. The invariable practice is that if they should catch their man they should secure him, even without the warrant. We are accustomed to that sort of treatment in Ireland, where we are a police governed people, but it is for hon. Members of this House to say whether they will suffer their liberties to be bandied about in that way. I thank the House for its attention. If it had been left to myself I would have chosen another opportunity for addressing it; but I cordially acknowledge the courtesy and attention with which I have been listened to.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have before me, in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), a warning against the consequences of widening the field of debate which he was so completely successful in effecting, and I shall en-

    285
    deavour to avoid following the example that he set, I think with unfortunate consequences. But when I came into the House I had had some conversation with one or two of my friends, and it appeared to me that obviously this was a case which it would be convenient to refer to the Committee of Privileges. But I did not see that there was any matter likely to be of a contentious character which could enter into the consideration of the question. I will do this act of justice to the Government, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews)—that, so far as apology is concerned, I think he has made every apology which possibly can in fairness be expected from him; and so far as vindictive or penal proceedings are concerned, there is no reason why we should entertain the thought of them at all. I have seen, not very long ago, a disposition to establish the doctrine that apology does not purge offence. I think that a very dangerous innovation, and I am glad that on this occasion the Government have adopted a doctrine of a more rational and more merciful character. Now, I wish to put this to Her Majesty's Government—as they will see, in no contentious spirit—that since this discussion began, the grounds for this reference has been greatly widened, and I think that after hearing the statement just made by the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) of the facts, according to his view of them, the right hon. Gentlemen the Home Secretary will see that they are so seriously in conflict with the statement made by himself, that this of itself constitutes a just and reasonable ground, without the least imputation on the right hon. Gentleman, for sending this matter to a Committee of Privileges. We have here before us three points. We have the point that a Member of this House was without cause arrested. He was subsequently released, and no vindictive proceedings are contemplated. But the fact is that a Member of this House was arrested when in a position which has always be recognized by the House as entitling him to special regard and protection—namely, while on his way to or from the performance of his duties in Parliament. The second point before us is that in this very grave matter of arresting a Member of this House on his way to or from the performance of
    286
    his duty, the officer of police proceeded without being in possession of the warrant. That is a grave fact in this case. Will the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) say that the police officer not in possession of a warrant was entitled in law to make an arrest? I do not put the question in any captious spirit; but I am imformed by high legal authorities that the arrest could not be properly and legally made by a man not in possession of a warrant. If not in possession of the warrant he could not be absolutely certain of its existence at the moment. It ought to be shown whether an arrest can be made without the production of the warrant. Although the officer was not in possession of the warrant, yet he was cognizant of the name of the person whom he had intended to arrest. That person was Mr. Gilhooly. He said that he had a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Gilhooly, and that the hon. Member made some sign which made him take it that he assented to that being his name. That is an important matter, because if the hon. Member gave the police constable to understand that he was Mr. Gilhooly, it would have gone very far indeed to dispose of the whole question. But the most important fact is now denied on what we have always been accustomed to consider the highest authority—namely, the deliberate assertion of an hon. Member in his place in this House. I really think that on these grounds alone Her Majesty's Government ought to allow this case to be referred to a Committee of Privilege. But I must, say that after the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), upon which I congratulate the Government, it does appear to me that the necessity for such a reference is most urgent. We are all concerned in it, for there is no saying how far the doctrines of my right hon. and learned Friend are to extend. My right hon. and learned Friend says that except as to civil process there is no Privilege of a Member of Parliament against arrest other than what is possessed by every other member of the community. If that proposition be true, it is a most grave proposition—namely, that any hon. Member of this House, any one of us, at a time when any criminal process whatever is out against anybody, it does not signify whom—that

    287
    is perfectly irrelevant to the question of Privilege—whether it was by mistake for another Member or not, any one of us may be arrested in mistake, and there is no question of Privilege involved; and the only question, I suppose, is whether he has a remedy by a civil action for false imprisonment. How far does my right hon. and learned friend mean to carry that doctrine? Does he mean to deny personal Privilege altogether? He appeared to denounce it as in itself odious and indefensible. It is odious and indefensible if it be regarded as attaching to us in our personal and individual capacity. But it is because of the great functions which we discharge—it is because it is necessary for the public interest that there should be the free discharge of those functions, free access to and from their discharge—that is the reason why we are surrounded with Privilege. The doctrine of my right hon. and learned Friend appears to me to imperil our liberty. According to the view of my right hon. and learned Friend, what constitutes a breach of Privilege? He says—what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Attorney General do not say—that there was no breach of Privilege here, although a Member of Parliament was taken into custody, there being no authority or warrant whatever for his arrest. That, in the view of my right hon. and learned Friend, constituted no breach of Privilege. Upon what does he base breach of Privilege? My right hon. and learned Friend's doctrine appears to be that no man can commit a breach of Privilege unless he knows that he is committing, and intends to commit, it. Is he prepared to lay down that as a general proposition? If not, what has he to show for the assertion that there was no breach of Privilege in this case? There was an act done, which act, apart from the motive, was a breach of Privilege—namely, the arrest, without cause, of a Member of this House. The arrest without cause of a Member of this House is a breach of Privilege, and that which, in the case of an ordinary person, is false imprisonment, is in the case of a Member of this House a breach of Privilege. With all my right hon. and learned Friend's ability, with all his astuteness, all his legal knowledge, with all his zeal to out-Herod the Government, can he find any doctrine which will cover his
    288
    statement that this was no breach of Privilege, except the doctrine that there cannot be breach of Privilege unless there is intention to commit it? If he holds that doctrine he must be prepared to carry it out to all its consequences. The hon. and learned Attorney General referred to the case of Lord Cochrane. In the case of Lord Cochrane, the arrest took place within the four walls of this House at a time when the House was not sitting. The Question was raised as to what this House is, as to the Privileges of Members when the House is not sitting, and the Committee had to inquire into that Question. The Committee was appointed in that instance whether there was a breach of Privilege or not. I humbly submit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury, as he is the only man in this House who has spoken in this debate and denied that there has been a breach of Privilege, that in deference to the precedent of Lord Cochrane's case—and as the Government have not denied that there has been a breach of Privilege, and as high legal authorities in the House have asserted that there has been a breach of Privilege—I submit to my right hon. and learned Friend that he ought to allow this case to go before the Committee of Privileges. I put it to him—however confident he may be in his opinion that there was no breach of Privilege here—that he must show us why there was no breach of Privilege when an illegal act was done against a Member of this House within a sphere recognized as coming within the range of Parliamentary duty; and if in the case of Lord Cochrane, when there was not only a criminal process, but there was nothing except the bare and shadowy notion that the benches and cushions and walls of the House might by some spell impart a Privilege at a time when the House was not in living practical existence, the matter was yet referred to a Committee of Privilege in order to ascertain if there had been a breach of Privilege committed, surely in this instance the case should be so dealt with. Therefore I contend that there are two grounds on which that course should be followed. Those who think with my right hon. and learned Friend that there was no breach of Privilege in this instance, may yet, in deference to the general opinion, admit that there

    289
    is in the case fair matter for inquiry. There is also the ground of those who think that an incident has occurred which may lead to very inconvenient consequences. I should be the last person who would wish to press unduly on any member of a Force to which, in my opinion, the Metropolitan community is under the deepest obligations. But I must say it was a very careless proceeding, and not merely a purely innocent error. The officer proceeded without his warrant, and he proceeded in circumstances where his statement of the case which he has given to the Government is diametrically in contradiction on a most material point with the statement of the hon. Member. In these circumstances, I do not myself understand why there should be any sentiment on one side of the House or the other involving the advocacy of extreme doctrines, or the advocacy of any doctrine whatever, to lead to excitement. It is, it seems to me, a matter of plain prudence, in which we ought to proceed as men of business, not willing to extend our Privileges beyond just bounds, and at the same time believing that, they rest upon a just and broad foundation—upon a foundation of public necessity and public interest. Therefore, we ought to ascertain—supposing it is a breach of Privilege which has been committed, and supposing the Committee find that it has been committed, or whatever view the Committee may take of it—whether it is not desirable, after some careful consideration, to see that the recurrence of similar incidents may be avoided. We are not in a position to move an Amendment, because the original Motion has been made, and the hon. and learned Attorney General has moved an Amendment; but we are in a position—if the hon. and learned Attorney General should find it necessary to persevere without seeking any accommodation in the matter, and if his Amendment is carried—to move as an Amendment this proposition—
    "That the circumstances attending the arrest of the hon. Member for North Monaghan be referred to the Committee of Privileges of this House to consider whether any or what action shall he taken thereupon and what measures shall be adopted to prevent such occurrences in future."
    It will be admitted that they are grave and inconvenient occurrences leading to
    290
    debate in this House, and making it a matter of propriety and prudence, as men of business, that we should endeavour to obviate all risk of similar inconveniences.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): Although the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has just read are not, of course, formally before the House, they contain a suggestion which I have to say at once the Government cannot accept. It is a suggestion which I may be allowed to point out does not touch the Question before the House to-night. Those words do not say that there has been any breach of Privilege committed at all, and they actually amount to a reference to the Committee of Privileges to provide the means of doing that which it is absolutely impossible can ever be done—namely, if a warrant is issued against one person you are to secure the whole police from making any mistakes in arresting another. It is very inconvenient that there should be warrants out against Members of Parliament at all. It is still more inconvenient that those Members should take a course and adopt expedients which render it probable that mistakes of this kind should arise. But under any arrangement, in any circumstances, such mistakes are possible. The Committee of Privileges of the House of Commons could do nothing whatever to prevent their recurrence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian said that he did not propose to widen the field of debate, and that he would discuss the matter in a calm and businesslike way. Indeed, he gave an effectual rebuke to the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who had turned on the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) the moment he sat down, and attacked him with great violence, declaring that no one in the House had ventured to endorse the proposition that there was not a breach of Privilege. The right hon. Gentleman never gave the House or any Member of it the opportunity of endorsing the propositions of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury. If he had been good enough to wait until someone on the Government Bench had had the opportunity of speaking, he would have

    291
    found there were plenty ready to endorse the propositions of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That was not what I said. I said that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Attorney General had stated exactly the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that there was a question of Privilege, and that nobody could doubt it.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) said that in his judgment no breach of Privilege had been committed, and I say so now. With all respect to the right hon. Member for Derby, and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, they seem to me to have missed the point and the meaning of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury. He said there is no privilege for Members of this House in criminal cases anywhere; but out of respect for the authority of the Chair and the order of proceedings of this House, no arrest can take place within the walls of this Chamber while the House is sitting. There would be no need for it, for the officers of the law could wait at the doors of the House and make the arrest as the Member concerned was leaving it. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] I am glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby agrees with me. Therefore, I submit, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury was perfectly accurate in saying that in criminal cases there is no question of Privilege at all. If he had been a private person walking through Parliament Street, and had been mistaken for the hon, Member against whom the warrant had been issued, there would have been just as much and just as little right to invoke the Privilege of Parliament as there is in the present case. The Privilege of Parliament is a special and peculiar immunity from process on the part of the Members of this House. That immunity does not exist when a criminal process has been issued and a warrant is in existence. That being so, and inasmuch as this was a warrant issued in a criminal case, and the arrest was made by mistake on a criminal charge, I hold with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for
    292
    Bury that there cannot be a question of Privilege in it. What is the question to be referred to the Committee of Privileges? There is no dispute as to the facts. The hon. Member who began the debate (Mr. Picton) said there had been a mistake on the part of the police. That mistake was apologized for at once, and since then in a more formal manner. What is there to ask the Committee of Privileges about. It has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that that which would be ground for an action for false imprisonment in the case of a private person is ground for invoking the Privilege of Parliament in the case of a Member. I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman will not find in any book of authority the smallest shadow of foundation for such a distinction as that. These matters are within the knowledge of the House; but the right hon. Gentleman said that on the main point there was controversy. With all submission I think that is not so. The hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) told us himself the incidents of his own arrest, and he said that he was spoken to in a low voice. It may be that he did not hear the name which was suggested to him by the officer who spoke to him. There is no other matter in controversy at all, and nothing on which the Committee of Privileges can pronounce. I support the Amendment which the hon. and learned Attorney General has moved. I hope the House, having heard now the statement of the hon. Member principally concerned—seeing that he has no desire to press the House to take penal measures against the person who made the mistake—will consent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General and pass to the discussion of other Business.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has suggested that when an arrest is made the warrant must be in the hand or pocket of the officer making it. That view is quite contrary to all practice. The rule is that the warrant must be in the possession or under the control of the person making the arrest. That is exactly what occurred here. The officer had the warrant under his control, though not in his possession, for he was able to send another officer

    293
    for it. As to the main question, if the right man had been arrested there would have been no broach of Privilege, for the arrest was on a criminal charge. Inasmuch, however, as the arrest was made bonâ fide by the officer, who believed the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) to be a certain person, and it is conceded by both sides that a mistake had been made, the arrest, which would otherwise have been a breach of Privilege, loses that character, and I cannot refrain from asking whether there is really any question that the House can possibly consider?
    MR. PARNELL: I think, Sir, if this had been a question of the arrest, even by mistake, of an English Member, hon. Members opposite would have been in less haste to deny that it was a breach of Privilege. I wonder why it was necessary for the Government Front Bench to wait till it had been fortified by the legal opinion of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) before it came to the conclusion that there had been no breach of Privilege. This is certainly a case in which an hon. Member has not been arrested on a criminal charge. No one pretends that there was any criminal charge against the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien), who was arrested, unless they accept the principle, "once a criminal always a criminal," and that the quality which has been attached to my hon. Friend by the judgments of the removable magistrates in Ireland will continue to attach to him during the rest of his natural life. I cannot see how it can for a single moment be suggested that there is any question of proceedings or arrest in any criminal matter or cause. I complain of the arrest, and of the manner of the arrest, and the proceedings of the Government in reference to it. I say, at the commencement, that if it had been an English Member who had been arrested, not only would the question have been treated as one of breach of Privilege, but the Government would have taken care, and the Detective Department would have taken care, to send a member of the Force who at least knew the hon. Member who was to be arrested. It is because there is an opinion abroad that Irish Members are to be treated like vermin that the Government would not take the trouble
    294
    to see that the Irish Member to be arrested is the right man. How do you effect these arrests? You effect them as if you were arresting some common street rowdy. I am complaining of the method of the arrest of my hon. Friend—a method which may be extended to any of us. The arrest of my hon. Friend was forcibly carried out, and my hon. Friend was taken to the police station as if he were a common thief. My hon. Friend, immediately he got his foot outside this building, was pounced upon when he was outside the precincts of Westminster, and he was dragged through the streets like a thief, without the police knowing or caring whether they were taking the right man into custody. Sir, I protest against this, and also against another matter which has been disclosed in the circumstances connected with the arrest of my hon. Friend. Sir, it used to be the custom, before the Speaker was provided with a residence here, for hon. Members, on the call of "Who goes home?" to accompany the Speaker, in order to protect him from thieves and robbers; but now it appears that hon. Members have to obtain protection from the detectives who are waiting ready to pounce upon them immediately they set their feet outside the gates of Palace Yard, without even knowing whether they may not be arresting the wrong man. I also protest against another practice which the Government are initiating, and which has been disclosed by the circumstances connected with the arrest of my hon. Friend. I do not blame the police in the matter—I do not blame the detectives. They are only imitating the spirit of their masters. If the Irish detectives who carried off one of my hon. Friends to Ireland the other day had not known of this spirit they would not have refused him all opportunity for obtaining refreshment on his long journey from London to Waterford, and have dragged him before the magistrates faint with hunger. I draw a great distinction between the conduct of the English police and that of the Irish detectives. I do not attach any blame either in regard to discourtesy or misconduct to the English police. All I say is that there is a marked difference between their conduct and that of the Irish detectives. What has just been disclosed as to the new departure of the

    295
    Government in reference to these arrests? We all know that at the commencement of every Session a Resolution is passed by this House directing the officers of the London police to make provision for securing the free egress of hon. Members; and I am sure that hon. Members will join me in testifying to the ample courtesy which constables stationed both inside and outside of this House have always extended to hon. Members in reference to that part of their duty. They are a special class of men chosen for that purpose; and it is with much pleasure that we see the same faces year after year, both at the entrances to the House and in the Lobbies. But, I would ask, what is the duty that has now been imposed upon those men by the Government? It is that of spying about the House. They cannot avoid doing what they are ordered to do; and in pursuance of the new practice initiated by the Government they have to spy after hon. Members, and to give information to the detectives at the gates with regard to those against whom there may be warrants. Sir, I protest against this. I believe that if the opinions of those officers were known, they would support my protest against such foreign duties being thrust upon them. I may remind the House of the case of one of its hon. Members who was pushed back from the steps leading to the passage beneath the Clock Tower at Westminster Bridge by an officer in uniform who had been placed there for the purpose of facilitating the ingress and egress of hon. Members. I say that it is the duty of the Government, when English or Irish Members have to be arrested, to send some person to execute the warrants who is able to identify the Members in question. Is it too much to ask of Her Majesty's Government that hon. Members shall be allowed to leave the House without being pounced upon by the detectives in plain clothes and dragged off to Scotland Yard? Some men are naturally of a nervous disposition, and the shock of such an arrest might kill them, while others of a hasty disposition might be tempted in the heat of the moment to commit acts of violence. Since Irish Members are likely to be arrested in large numbers, and since the place chosen for their arrest is of all others at the gates of Westminster
    296
    Palace, let them be arrested by those who know them. Do not call upon the constables here to spy about and assist the detectives in the discharge of their duty. I think I have said enough to show to the House that there is a question of breach of Privilege involved in this matter, if there be any Privilege whatever accorded to a Member of this House to come to it or go away from it without molestation. It is true that if there be a criminal warrant out against an hon. Member and he is arrested under it, he can claim no Privilege; but there was no such warrant against my bon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan, for the warrant was against another hon. Member, and therefore, in his case, there clearly has been a breach of Privilege. This question should be looked at as one concerning the whole House, and not merely as affecting Irish Members. The practice adopted lately by the Government is a most inconvenient one, and is likely to give rise to similar occurrences, and as Members of this House I submit that we ought to be free to go and come without molestation by Irish detectives. I am surprised at the line that Her Majesty's Government have taken in reference to this matter, and I hope that even at the eleventh hour they will see the propriety of referring the question to a Select Committee, and of agreeing to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). They never ventured to deny that there was a question of Privilege involved until they were fortified by the opinion of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), and now they think that they are wiser than you, Sir, who have permitted this discussion to take place as a matter of Privilege. If there is no question of Privilege involved, why are we discussing this question at the present moment? We could not have gone on with this discussion in the position in which we are unless a question of Privilege had been involved. We have now the Front Bench asserting—in opposition to the Speaker—that there is no question of Privilege involved. It is quite possible that the House might not have decided to take action against any particular person in reference to this question of Privilege; but in consequence of the Front Bench opposite denying, in opposition to the ruling of

    297
    the Speaker, that there is any question of Privilege involved, a much graver issue has been raised. I think that, at all events, the Government might have consented to the matter being referred, if not to the Committee for Privileges, to a small Committee to inquire into the circumstances.
    MR. HALDANE: I rise, not for the purpose of protracting the debate, because I think it has been made abundantly clear that a breach of Privilege has been committed in the arrest of the hon. member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien). That the breach of Privilege was committed inadvertently and unintentionally is not less clear. The real question to be considered is what course the House ought to take, and I submit that the proper course is that this question should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, before whom the whole circumstances of the case could be laid, and who would report what course the House ought to take. At any rate, that Committee would be able to point out whether the Privileges of this House have been rashly violated. This course is not without precedent. The case of Lord Cochrane was substantially like the present. Lord Cochrane had been arrested in his place as a Privy Councillor, but at a time when the House was not sitting, and it was plain that no breach of Privilege had been committed; it was also plain, as the Speaker ruled on that occasion, that the offence—if an offence had been committed—was not likely to be repeated. Lord Castlereagh, at that time the Leader of the Tory Party—a Leader whom the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of that Party in the House may be expected to regard as worthy of some admiration—however, said that if any Gentleman entertained a doubt upon the subject, and if any hon. Member conceived that the Privileges of the House had been violated, it was only proper that the circumstances should be fully inquired into, and an adequate investigation made. Mr. Tierney, who was Leader of the Opposition on that occasion, approved of that proposition; and Mr. Speaker Abbott—your Predecessor, Sir, in that Chair—gave an important ruling upon the matter which, I think, meets the objection of the Solicitor General. Mr. Speaker said that, in his opinion, it was quite clear that Lord Cochrane
    298
    had been returned to Parliament, and that he had come down to the House in order to go through the necessary form for taking his seat, and that, whatever might be the form of the inquiry, it should be directed to ascertain whether a breach of the Privileges of Parliament had been committed or not. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the House will see fit on the present occasion to follow the course which was adopted by his Predecessor in the case of Lord Cochrane.
    THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): As the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) has thought fit to appeal to me. I will at once respond. There is no parallel between the case of Lord Cochrane and that of the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. Patrick O'Brien). In the case of the hon. Member a mistake was made by a police officer in arresting him, and for that mistake an apology has since been made by the officer who committed it and by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in this House. Nothing more could be extracted even by the operations of the Committee of Privileges. But then, Sir, it is contended that an inquiry should take place by the Committee of Privileges in order that mistakes may never be committed in future. It is admitted on ail hands that no Member has any Privilege as regards criminal process; while it is also admitted that he is privileged as regards civil process. There is, therefore, no question in dispute, and the matter comes to this—whether there is to be an inquiry as to an accident which has been amply apologized for, with a view of steps being taken to prevent its repetition. To take a wider interpretation of the hon. Member for Cork's (Mr. Parnell's) words, we are to inquire how hon. Gentlemen are to be relieved from the presence of officers in this House—
    MR. PARNELL: I did not say anything of the kind.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am the last person to wish to attribute to the hon. Member anything contrary to what he said. I wish to give a correct and moderate interpretation of the hon. Member's language. He complained that the Government called upon the officers of police in this House to do a duty from which they themselves, at least, would

    299
    desire to be relieved. On the part of the Government I repudiate any charge of that kind.
    MR. PARNELL: Do you deny the facts?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: we impose no duty whatever upon the police of this House. The police are discharging' their duty in the protection of Members of this House, and in the protection of this House itself against the designs of persona who might expose Members of this House and the House itself to serious danger.
    MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the police officers in the House of Commons were directed by their superior officers to report when certain Members of this House, who were afterwards arrested, were going to leave the House?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I say that the Government have imposed no such duties whatever on the police. The facts of the case are these. Warrants are in the hands of the police. The police act upon them, and it is their duty to give effect to them, and they never apply to the Government for directions as to the means by which they are to carry out and discharge their duties. The Government have no knowledge whatever of the modes and methods adopted by the police in discharge of their duty.
    MR. PARNELL: The Commissioners of Police have.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I know nothing whatever of the Commissioners of Police, of what instructions they give.
    An hon. MEMBER: The Home Secretary does.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I say that the main duty of the police in attendance in this House is to see to the safety and protection of Members of the House under circumstances fully requiring such protection. The question has travelled widely from the original Resolution I moved by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). That hon. Member moved a Resolution which it was simply impossible for the Government to accept. An indignity has been offered to the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien), which we deeply regret. We have apologized for that indignity, and we say that, the facts having been fully stated and admitted, there really does not remain any question which could be considered by the Committee of Privileges. We must, therefore, ask
    300
    the House to accept the Amendment of the Attorney General.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I rise as a private Member of the House to refer to the question from a private Member's point of view. The matter is not one which solely affects the hon. Gentleman who has suffered the indignity referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has sought to establish a distinction between the Government of the day and the police employed in this House, and has declined to accept any responsibility for the action of the police. If it be the case that the Government have no responsibility for the action of the police, I want to know why the Government have taken upon themselves the duty of coming down here and making an apology to a private Member? Surely it is no more difficult for the Government to make an apology to a private Member than it is to make an apology to any other section of the House. Therefore, they cannot but feel that responsibility rests upon them in some measure for the action of the police. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary undertake to say that he had no knowledge of the instructions given to the police in reference to the arrest of individual Members of this House? We want an assurance on that subject. We have all gloried in the traditions of this House, and we know the way in which the Privileges of the House have been regarded in the past. We believe that an inquiry is necessary, because we think it ought to be placed on record now that we are equally jealous of those Privileges in regard to the humblest Member of the House. I confess that it is a poor consolation to any hon. Member who has suffered an indignity to be told that it has been inflicted upon him simply because of a mistake of the police. I think it devolves upon the Government to clear the police of this matter; and, so far from believing that there is no case for inquiry by the Committee of Privileges, I concede that it is the bounden duty of the House to institute an inquiry into the matter. An apology has been made, first, by the superior officer of the police, and, secondly, by the Home Secretary; but that does not satisfy us that there might not be the same motives at work by which some

    301
    further indignity might be offered to a Member of this House. I think it ought to be enough for the House to know that an indignity has been perpetrated, and, having charge of the dignity of Parliament, it ought at once to assent to the Motion that the Committee of Privileges ought to inquire into the matter in order that it may be cleared up. The mere fact that we have roaming about the Metropolis and the neighbourhood of this House such odious creatures, in my eyes, as detectives constitutes a reason wiry the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, in order to prevent such an event as this from occurring in future. At any rate, we ought to make a protest against this, if we are at all jealous of the ancient Privileges of Parliament.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Before you put the Question, Sir, I venture to suggest to my hon. Friends above and below the Gangway that the best course to attain the object we have in view would be to allow the Amendment of the Attorney General to become the Main Question, and we should then be able to divide on an Amendment to that Motion.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed,
    "That the words 'this House regrets an indignity should have been offered to the honourable Member for North Monaghan, but, considering it to have been a mistake on the part of the Police Officer, does not think it necessary to proceed further with the matter ' be there added."
    Amendment proposed to the said Amendment,
    To leave out all the words after the word "but" to the end of the Amendment, in order to add the words "the circumstances attending his arrest be referred to the Committee of Privileges of this House, to consider whether any or what action should be taken thereupon, and what measures should be taken to prevent such occurrences in the future."—(Mr. John Morley.)
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand of the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 151: Majority 95.

    AYES.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Aird, J.

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Banes, Major G. E.

    302

    Barnes, A.

    Dugdale, J. S.

    Barry, A. H. Smith-

    Duncan, Colonel F.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Duncombe, A.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

    Ebrington, Viscount

    Elcho, Lord

    Beadel, W. J.

    Ellis, Sir J. W.

    Beaumont, H. F.

    Elton, C. I.

    Bentinck, Lord H. C.

    Ewart, W.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Ewing, Sir A. O.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Eyre, Colonel H.

    Beresford, Lord G. W. De la Poer

    Farquharson, H. R.

    Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R. J.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Bickford-Smith, W.

    Biddulph, M.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Bigwood, J.

    Fielden, T.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Finch, G. H.

    Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Bolitho, T. B.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Bond, G. H.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Boord, T. W.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Gent-Davis, R.

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

    Giles, A.

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Brown, A. H.

    Bruce, Lord H.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

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

    Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.

    Gray, C. W.

    Burghley, Lord

    Green, Sir E.

    Caine, W. S.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Caldwell, J.

    Gunter, Colonel R.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Carmarthen, Marq. of

    Hall, C.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Chaplin, right hon. H.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Charrington, S.

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

    Hamilton, Lord E.

    Hamilton, Col. C. E.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

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

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Coddington, W.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Coghill, D. H.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

    Heath, A. R.

    Compton, F.

    Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

    Corbett, J.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Dalrymple, Sir C.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Hill, A. S.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Hoare, S.

    Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

    Hobhouse, H.

    Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

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

    Holloway, G.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

    Dixon, G.

    Howard, J.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Howorth, H. H.

    Donkin, R. S.

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    303

    Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Norris, E. S.

    Northcote, hon. H. S.

    Hunter, Sir W. G.

    Norton, R.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Parker, hon. F.

    James, rt. hon. Sir H.

    Pearce, Sir W.

    Jardine, Sir E.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Jarvis, A. W.

    Penton, Captain F. T.

    Jeffreys, A. F.

    Plunket, right hon. D. R.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Johnston, W.

    Pomfret, W. P.

    Kelly, J. R.

    Powell, F. S.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Puleston, Sir J. H.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Reed, H. B.

    Kerans, F. H.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Kimber, H.

    Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

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

    Robertson, Sir W. T.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Knowles, L.

    Round, J.

    Kynoch, G.

    Russell, Sir G.

    Lafone, A.

    Russell, T. W.

    Laurie, Colonel R. P.

    Sandys, Lieut-Col. T. M.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

    Sellar, A. C.

    Lawrence, W. F.

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

    Lea, T.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Legh, T. W.

    Sidebotham, J. W.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Smith, right hon. W. H.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Smith, A.

    Long, W. H.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Low, M.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Lowther, J. W.

    Stokes, G. G.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Sutherland, T.

    Swetenham, E.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Taylor, F.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Maclure, J. W.

    Thorburn, W.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Madden, D. H.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Malcolm, Col. J. W.

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

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

    Vincent, C. E. H.

    Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

    Maple, J. B.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Marriott, right hon. W. T.

    Webster, R. G.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Matthews, rt. hon. H.

    Whitley, E.

    Mattinson, M. W.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Wilson, Sir S.

    Mayne, Admiral R. C.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Mildmay, F. B.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Mills, hon. C. W.

    Wood, N.

    More, R. J.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Morrison, W.

    Wright, H. S.

    Moss, R.

    Wroughton, P.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Yerburgh, R. A.

    Young, C. E. B.

    Mowbray, R. G. C.

    Muntz, P. A.

    TELLERS.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Noble, W.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    NOES.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Asher, A.

    Barry, J.

    Asquith, H. H.

    Beaumont, W. B.

    304

    Biggar, J. G.

    M'Carthy, J. H.

    Blane, A.

    M'Donald, P.

    Bolton, J. C.

    M'Ewan, W.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Bright, Jacob

    M'Laren, W. S. B.

    Bright, W. L.

    Mappin, Sir F. T.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Marum, E. M.

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Mayne, T.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Menzies, R. S.

    Bryce, J.

    Montagu, S.

    Burt, T.

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Byrne, G. M.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Cameron, J. M.

    Morley, rt. hon. J.

    Campbell, H.

    Mundella, right hon. A. J.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Murphy, W. M.

    Carew, J. L.

    Newnes, G.

    Cavan, Earl of

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Channing, F. A.

    Nolan, J.

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

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Clancy, J. J.

    O'Connor, A.

    Cobb, H. P.

    O'Connor, J.

    Commins, A.

    O'Hanlon, T.

    Corbet, W. J.

    O'Hea, P.

    Craven, J.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Crawford, D.

    Parker, C. S.

    Cremer, W. R.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Crilly, D.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Crossley, E.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Picton, J. A.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Pinkerton, J.

    Ellis, T. E.

    Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

    Evelyn, W. J.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Finucane, J.

    Portman, hon. E. B.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Price, T. P.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Priestley, B.

    Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

    Provand, A. D.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    Quinn, T.

    Fuller, G. P.

    Rathbone, W.

    Gardner, H.

    Reid, R. T.

    Gill, T. P.

    Rendel, S.

    Gladstone, right hon. W. E.

    Richard, H.

    Roberts, J. B.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Robertson, E.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Robinson, T.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Roscoe, Sir H. E.

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

    Rowntree, J.

    Russell, Sir C.

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

    Samuelson, Sir B.

    Samuelson, G. B.

    Harris, M.

    Schwann, C. E.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Sheil, E.

    Howell, G.

    Slagg, J.

    Hoyle, I.

    Smith, S.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Illingworth, A.

    Stack, J.

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

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

    Stansfeld, right hon. J.

    Kenny, C. S.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Kilbride, D.

    Stewart, H.

    Lalor, R.

    Sullivan, D.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Summers, W.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Sutherland, A.

    Leake, R.

    Thomas, A.

    Lewis, T. P.

    Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

    Macdonald, W. A.

    MacInnes, M,

    Tuite, J.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Warmington, C. M.

    M'Cartan, M.

    Watt, H.

    305

    Wayman, T.

    Wright, C.

    Will, J. S.

    Williams, A. J.

    TELLERS.

    Williamson, S.

    Flower, C.

    Wilson, H. J.

    Morley, A.

    Woodall, W.

    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That this House regrets that an indignity should have been offered to the honourable Member for North Monaghan, but, considering it to have been a mistake on the part of the Police Officer, does not think it necessary to proceed further with the matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    THIRD NIGHT.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th February.]—[See page 64.]
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. FLYNNsaid, that as another of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary's "criminals" he would ask the attention of the House for a few minutes to the manner in which the Coercion Act had been administered in Ireland. That Act had been administered in Ireland with unmitigated ferocity. He had personal knowledge of the way in which it had been administered, and he could say that, instead of its being used for the purpose of putting down and detecting crime, it had been used for an entirely different purpose—namely, for assisting rack-renting landlords in exacting unfair rents and the torture of the political opponents of the Government. He refused to call it a Criminal Law Amendment Act. It was a Coercion Act, and it was intended as such, and as such it was being used at the present moment. The Irish Members had not, however, imagined that the Irish Government would find such pliant and ready tools to their hands as the roving, resident, removable magistrates who had been called on to administer the Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Bolfour) took credit to himself for a diminution of crime, and had asserted that such diminution was due to the working of the Act. But that was not the case. The fact was that such diminu-
    306
    tion in the amount of crime as might be was traceable to the Home Rule Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), which had enabled the priests and leaders of the people to control the less amenable class of the population, and which had infused a better feeling into the hearts of the people. The only parts of the country where crime had increased were just those parts in which the National League had been suppressed, and where it had been prevented by the right hon. Gentleman from exercising its beneficent sway over the people. In the constituency of the county of Cork which he had the honour to represent the right hon. Gentleman was arresting respectable shopkeepers, traders, and farmers, and sending them to gaol as common criminals for what was no crime; and he himself was shortly to go through the farce of a trial for having made a speech to his constituents in which he advised them to enter into legitimate combination for the assertion of their legal rights. Wherever there was strife or conflict between landlord and tenant, owing to the exorbitant demands of the landlord, there was the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary with his Act and his removable magistrates daily at work passing sentences of extraordinary severity on men as honourable as any hon. Member who sat in that House. All the men who had been proceeded against under this Act in his constituency were hard-working, respectable men, of irreproachable character. The right hon. Gentleman was step by step advancing to the inclusion of priests and. Members of that House; but he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he was going to tranquillize Ireland with his accursed Coercion Act in that way, he would have to proceed much further and arrest every able-bodied man in the community who happened to be a Nationalist. As an instance of the injustice perpetrated under the Act, he would refer to a case which occurred at Kanturk. Five shopkeepers had been indicted for conspiring to refuse to deal with a certain person. Those men, he pointed out, as had been shown in evidence, had had no communication whatever with one another on the subject, but were convicted notwithstanding by two roving magistrates, and sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard

    307
    labour. He contended that exclusive dealing, such, as this, was perfectly-legal, both under the Common Law and under the Coercion Act. There were many similar cases which he could give the House. If his constituents and others were exposed to these terrible risks, whether they could afford it or not, they would be compelled to take costly proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench or Exchequer, while, in the meantime, gross injustice was being perpetrated. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the action of the Government was tending to the pacification of Ireland—did ha think he was increasing respect for law and order in Ireland by proceedings of this kind all over the country? He had seen decisions of the Resident Magistrates which shocked all ideas of justice. The very last case charged was that some men wore cards in their hats when going to church on Sunday, and that they were seen going into the priest's house an hour or two after the service. The police were asked, was it not possible that they might be meetings for purposes of the chapel? and the police could not say "no" to that question. There had been a very suspicious connection between a certain speech delivered in Manchester by the right hon. Gentleman and subsequent proceedings in Ireland. Very shortly after that speech it became the rule with the Resident Magistrates to give one month's imprisonment with hard labour, in order to suspend the power of appeal. His hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) was at the present moment suffering two months' imprisonment in Tullamore Gaol under two sentences of one month each. His counsel asked to have a case stated, but this was refused; it was asked that there should be an appeal to the Recorder of Cork, so that the sentence might be increased in order to give the right of appeal. But that was only a few days after the Manchester speech of the right hon. Gentleman—the whip was in the air, and the terriers knew too well to disobey their masters. In another case, which occurred a few days ago, of the printer of a certain Cork newspaper, it was proved at the trial that he had as much control of the matter which went into that newspaper as the printer's devil or the messenger who delivered it to the subscribers;
    308
    and yet, because that newspaper contained a report of a meeting of a suppressed branch of the League, the printer got two months' imprisonment—one month each on two charges. Again, it was asked that the sentence should be increased; but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was too recent, the man was denied the right of appeal, and was then undergoing punishment. It was not alone that they had the printer imprisoned for two months—the very boys who sold the paper were pursued by the right hon. Gentleman's constables all over the streets. Then there was the case of a poor woman, who was pursued and threatened for selling The Cork Examiner and Herald. These were specimens of the administration of the Crimes Act, which, they were told, was so carefully-carried out. They had been told that crime had greatly diminished in Ireland, but Irish Members contended that the abatement of crime was due to other circumstances than the Coercion Act. It was somewhat due to legislation; but it was largely the result of the different feeling entertained by the people of Ireland towards the people of this country, which feeling had been greatly improved and strengthened by the visits to Ireland of hon. Members of that House and other gentlemen. There was one thing in connection with this Act and with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which he desired to refer to; and that was that for his part, and so far as the majority of hon. Members on those Benches were concerned, they did not take the figures of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Boycotting on his own showing. They wanted to know how those figures had been obtained, but they had no facilities whatever for testing the Returns. He refused to accept the figures of the right hon. Gentleman altogether; and, what was more, he told the right hon. Gentleman that if this Act continued in operation much longer, he feared that Boycotting would increase rather than diminish. For his own part, he regretted Boycotting as heartily as any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in the House. But he maintained that it was the lesser of two evils, and it was in many cases, unfortunately, the only protection which a persecuted people had been able to devise; and until some better protection could be afforded, they would adhere to it in spite

    309
    of the way in which this Act had been administered. He had shown the House and the country the extraordinary and eccentric conduct of many of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland. There were some magistrates who stood out in bold relief from the rest; but he believed Irish Members would be able to show that this Act, instead of being carefully carried into effect for the pacification of Ireland, the restoration of social order, and increasing respect for the law in Ireland, had been carried out for totally different purposes; that it had been carried into effect for the purpose of breaking down the legitimate organization of the people of Ireland, and if not with the intention, at any rate with the result, of goading the people of Ireland to a pitch of exasperation.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid, that according to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn) it would appear that there were crimes and conspiracies in Ireland other than these which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was attempting to put down; it seemed there were conspiracies for the purpose of bringing people under the law who otherwise would not have come within the cognizance of the magistrates who administered the law. But though according to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech one class of crime in Ireland had diminished, another was on the increase. If it were true, as was stated in Her Majesty's Speech, that crime had decreased, it was only what had been contended by Irish Members during the discussions which took place in that House on the Coercion Bill of last year. They had contended that crime had been greatly on the increase in Ireland, and that it only reached a greater extent on the day the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Coercion Bill as compared with what it was when the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was closeted with Lord Carnarvon on the subject of the wishes of the Irish people. Long before the Bill was introduced the Judges had gone round the country, and they had nothing to do in return for their bloated salaries but to congratulate the country on the diminution of crime, and to give white gloves to the Sheriffs. He had noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief
    310
    Secretary for Ireland blamed Lord Spencer for the administration of the Coercion Act. Although he (Mr. John O'Connor) had suffered at his hands, he took the earliest opportunity of bearing his testimony to the character of Lord Spencer. That noble Lord said that after looking into the organizations in Ireland he was obliged to confess that there was not one tittle of evidence which connected the Irish Leaders with crime and outrage. But he wished to point out that while Lord Spencer had struck them severely, and had put down crime with a strong hand, he restored those rights which were now being filched from the people of Ireland; he found that the right of combination had been taken away from them and he restored it, while he left the country freer from crime and outrage than it was before. Therefore it was that he would stand up in that House and defend the character of Lord Spencer against the attack made upon him by the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. But did not the argument of the right hon. Gentleman tell against the administration of the Coercion Act? A tu quoque was no argument at all; and if those magistrates who the light hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said had been appointed by his Predecessors had administered the Act in a severe manner it was because they were taking their tone from those above them. Irish Members knew well how it was that every man engaged in the execution of the law in Ireland was permeated with the spirit which prevailed in Dublin Castle. Now, although it might be endeavoured to prevent Irish Members examining into the character of those magistrates, they would do so nevertheless. One Resident Magistrate, Mr. Eaton, stated the other day in Court that he did not want any direct evidence to find his prisoners guilty; he had been informed that his victims were seen coming home from Mass with cards of the National League in their hats; their appearance alone was sufficient for him, and he sentenced them to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. Again, with regard to another Resident Magistrate. Upon the day on which Mr. Dillon sentenced Mr. Blunt to prison he himself was adjudicated a bankrupt, and yet the bankrupt magistrate was considered fit to hold Her Majesty's Com-

    311
    mission and to consign Mr. Blunt to prison for two mouths with hard labour. Then they had before them the character of Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes was a man who stood upon no legality whatever; he did not care whether the course he took was legal or illegal so long as he pleased his masters; he was a man who had outraged every form of legality in Ireland, and was the magistrate who had held under arrest the hon. Member for North-East Cork, in whose case the Judge, who sentenced him, said there was no legality for his arrest; and although he trampled on all the forms of the law, yet this man was selected by the Government. Then there was Mr. Curran, whom the Government had appointed to administer this Act; and Mr. Curran was the man who said that Glenbeigh was the happiest and most prosperous part of Ireland. He came now to the character of another gentleman who had played an important part in the South of Ireland—Captain Sea-grave. Captain Seagrave, whom they were in a position to be able to judge out of his own mouth as to his fitness for the post of President Magistrate, was asked the following questions in Court:—
    "How long have you been a Resident Magistrate f—About one year. I think the 15th October last was the exact date of my appointment.
    Where did you get your legal training for your position of Magistrate?—I had no legal training.
    Captain, where did you get your military training?—In South Africa.
    Did you ever get a Commission in the Home Army?—Never.
    Did you try?—I did.
    Did you fail?—I did.
    Did you try once more to get it?—I tried once more for the preliminary, and passed the second preliminary.
    Did you try again?—I tried a third time and failed—not very ignominiously I must say.
    At what time was that?—I think about the year 1875.
    Can you tell us whether these interesting qualifications were mentioned in the application for the Resident Magistracy f—Certainly not.
    Did Her Majesty's Government take the trouble to inquire before or after that time?—I cannot say.
    How long after your failure to get into the Army did you leave for the Cape?—Very shortly.
    Did you pass an examination there for your captaincy?—I passed no examination."
    Captain Seagrave then went on to say that he was for three years a private at the Cape, and having been asked
    312
    what Statute the Riot Act was, he replied—
    "I do not know; I will tell you if you allow me to look in my pocket. I do not see why I should be examined about my legal knowledge."
    Mr. Harrington, continuing the examination, then said—
    "If I were to be prosecuted in the morning you would, perhaps, be one of the magistrates to try me."
    To which Captain Seagrave replied—
    "I am not a legal Resident Magistrate."
    Would the House believe that this man, after he failed to pass his examinations for the Army and had served as a private in the Cape Mounted Rifles for several years—after he failed to be promoted to the rank of eergeant—nevertheless had been found worthy by Her Majesty's Government to take the position of President Magistrate, to have the lives of the people in his power, and to have power to order charges of the police? And this was the man who had been appointed to the district where his hon. Friend the Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) would be tried next week. It was men of this character, of whom he had given instances—and whose number could be multiplied almost at will—that were administering the Coercion Act in Ireland; and these were the men who were really goading the people into insurrection. The passage in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech referring to crime in Ireland was presaged at Manchester by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who said that the National League was "wobbling." But did it look like wobbling when the branches of the League which were suppressed still continued to hold their meetings, or when the applications to that organization had been increased fourfold since the suppression of those branches? There was no evidence of this in the fact that newspapers continued to publish day by day reports of the meetings of those branches. The Government might imprison the members of the branches, but the branches themselves would continue to meet, and the newspapers would continue to report their proceedings; and while those things continued he said that the League did not wobble, and that there was no foundation for the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

    313
    The Coercion Act was not passed for the purpose of putting down outrage; but it was enacted for the purpose of putting down the just combination of the Irish people. But the spirit of the people was untamed. Crime and outrage had decreased; and he was glad that it had decreased. Irish Members had done their best all along, without the aid of the Coercion Act, to keep the people within the bounds of law and reason. The only time when crime increased was when Irish Members were in Her Majesty's prisons; but since then they had used their best endeavours to reduce crime and outrage in Ireland, and he denied the right of Her Majesty's Government to claim the credit for what had taken place. He was quite sure that they would receive from posterity and history a favourable judgment. He was also satisfied with this—for while the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have to depend for his fame on a weak and washy imitation of the policy once called "thorough," the Irish people would receive credit, because they had maintained under oppression a virtuous perseverance in a cause which would be the delight of generations to come.
    MR. BLANEsaid, that as one of the criminals under the Act passed last year he had been sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour and a proper amount of stone-breaking—
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. BLANE, continuing, submitted that he had the same Constitutional rights as any Englishman or Scotchman. Representing, as he did, the most populous county in Ulster, he could speak for the Ulster men, because the National Party held the majority of the representation of that Province. The term of imprisonment referred to had been given to him for words which would be altogether innocent if spoken by an Englishman or Scotchman. He had been charged with inciting to the non-payment of rent. He held that he had the right to do that. In this country he could do so, where it was not an indictable offenee; he could tell men in England not to fulfil their contracts and take the consequences, and in doing so
    314
    he should be committing no crime. No number of wooden-headed barristers in Trinity College could make it criminal in Ireland. He (Mr. Blane) was invited to go to an Ulster county, where the landlord ground the faces of the poor to such an extent that the people had to obtain assistance from the charity of England, Scotland, and America. He found that if the assistance took the form of money, the landlord seized it in payment of his rent; and if it was in the shape of seed, he waited until the crop had ripened and then reaped it. He was actually not ashamed to do this, and to leave the people to starvation. The gentleman who acted in this way was a cousin of the Lord Lieutenant, named Stewart. The tenants used to be served with processes at Lifford, some 50 miles distant, to which place there was no railway, and soon afterwards a man would come down, and without any warrant from the County Court Judge levy blackmail, and carry off the horses and cattle. This man committed a crime under the colour of the law. He (Mr. Blane) went into the district, caused the man to be prosecuted, and for this intervention he got four months' imprisonment with hard labour. He held that that was a grave public scandal. If any hon. Gentleman could show him anything like that in any other country he would throw up the sponge. He was brought before two half-pay troopers, and got four months' imprisonment, because he told the people not to pay the rents as they were not legally due. What was the definition of rent legally due? Rent was not legally due until some Court adjudicated upon it, and issued a decree. He had known landlords issue processes in respect to rents which were not legally due. He had known landlords issue processes when receipts had been given by the agents of the property. He held that the Crimes Act was used for purposes of private vengeance. Nothing could be more clearly demonstrated than that the half-pay troopers who administered this martial law in Ireland had no idea of civil law or civil authority. Anything which they regarded as against discipline they punished with the utmost severity. There were many offences under martial law which would be no offence in the eye of a civil magistrate. The Irish President Magistrates, who were taken

    315
    from the Army and Navy, were not fit to administer Civil Law. If he were to put the question to them—"How do you know the rent is legally due?" they would not be able to give him an answer. In his case a warrant was issued for his arrest. Under the Act the Resident Magistrates could have proceeded against him by ordinary summons, and if he had refused to appear on the summons they could then have issued a warrant. They chose to issue a warrant at once, and in the morning, long before daylight, his humble dwelling was surrounded by breechloaders and bayonets. He was in bed at the time. He spoke to the officer in charge from his bedroom window. He was scarcely allowed to dress—at least, he was told he must be quick about it or they would force in the door. In short, he was treated as a vagabond. Now, he was the first Commoner in County Armagh, and contended that the authorities had no right to treat him in the way he had described. He did not wish to shirk responsibility for any act of his, and he never would advise a man to do that which he was not quite willing to do himself. He did not mean to apply to the Government to make his term of imprisonment less. Whether his imprisonment extended over four months or 12 months it was all the same to him. He felt called upon to come to the rescue of people he found oppressed. It was the duty of the Representatives of the people to defend their constituents. He and his hon. Friends would go to prison in the cause of the defence of the people. They were holdfasts in their constituencies, and the Government did not dare to contest their seats. They had not ventured to oppose him. Why was that? He had the confidence of the people; but he had not the confidence of the Castle, or of the administrators of this martial law. There was another landlord in the district called Olphert. His son, John Olphert, was the first Gentleman in Waiting at the Castle; he was a Silver Stick, or something of the sort, and walked backwards. This man put on the screw in the Castle, and assisted in getting the warrant issued against him (Mr. Blane). Now, when he was brought to Letterkenny a half-pay trooper committed him to Deny Gaol, and refused bail. Subsequently,
    316
    the magistrate held him to bail; but so gross was his ignorance of law that he would only hold him to bail in £1,000. Could they point to any such scandal in England? At most, his offence only amounted to a misdemeanour, and yet he was held to bail in—1,000. That was excessive bail. His treatment in that respect, too, was contrary to all ideas of the administration of Civil Law. He was confident the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) would not say that a man should be held to bail in £1,000 for misdemeanour. At the time of his arrest, the parish priest of Gweedore was arrested. The rev. gentleman came down to the funeral of the late Catholic Primate, and he was there and then arrested. He was taken through Belfast and on to Derry, and there lodged in gaol. A second clergyman, the Rev. Daniel Stephens, was also arrested about the same time. Both these clergymen were arrested because they came to the defence of their people against a man who was levying blackmail. Why should not these gentlemen come to the rescue of the people? Manifestly, it was their duty to do so. What was the use of a pastor having a flock unless he defended them? What was the use of a Member of Parliament unless he was prepared to stand up in defence of the liberties of the people? He and the rev. gentleman he had referred to were quite willing to undergo any imprisonment in the cause they had espoused. The men who put them in gaol would not always be sitting comfortably on the Treasury Bench. There would be a wag of the pendulum which would bring them to the Opposition Benches; and except the close Corporation of landlords in Trinity College, which always preserved Trinity College from Land Acts, very few would regret the change. He asserted that unless the people of England realized that it was to their interest to take up the cause of Ireland, they also would soon lose their liberties. The people of Ireland had lost the right of public meeting, and the people of England had lost the same right. The occurrences which caused so much consternation in London not long ago were the result of the performances in Ireland. He was sure it was not necessary for him to prove to the House the necessity of his action in Donegal. The British public knew the

    317
    facts only too well. They knew that but for the subscriptions of the charitable people in this country, the people of Gweedore and other places would have perished not by hundreds, but by thousands. Much of the money, however, was taken by the landlords and by the bailiff for bogus law costs and blackmail. "When he was arrested he had a guard as large as that which followed the Queen down Piccadilly on the 14th of June. He never had such a following in his life, and he was highly delighted at the honour paid him. But did the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland or anybody else in the House believe that the cost of the troops would be defrayed by the people of Gweedore and the other districts concerned? Certainly, it would not. The people were too poor to keep the troops, who had to make a forced march because there were no means of accommodating them in the district. All the expense incurred would have been avoided if the landlords had come to some sort of terms with their tenants. Griffith's valuation was 1d. per English acre, but in some cases the rents had been forced up to the extent of 500 per cent. This was not in Cork or Kerry, or in any of the Southern Provinces, but in prosperous Ulster. The rent had been forced up from time to time, until at last the poor people could not live at all. It was not only landlords who resorted to exactions, but the agent's officers had been in the habit of sending out different processes, purporting to be decrees, and the poor people had given them 10 s. and 15 s. to go away. And now the Government talked about law and order. He liked to hear sermons preached from the Table by men who took as their text law and order, when what he had described was done in Ireland under the name of law and order. He contended that what he had denounced in Donegal was a perversion of justice and a grave public scandal. For endeavouring to prevent the oppression of the people he was to undergo imprisonment. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland might ask what was the reason, if he did not believe in the justice of Irish Courts, that he had appealed against his sentence. He was 11 days in Londonderry Gaol, and, as a matter of fact, he found his toes very cold. It occurred to him that it would be well for him to
    318
    appeal, because then he would have to spend April, May, June, and July, four pleasanter mouths, in gaol. He assured them that in Londonderry Gaol a man got very cold. The floors of the cells were not boarded—at least, that of his cell was not. The floor was of flag, and the cell only measured nine feet by six. But, no matter what their privations were to be, they were bound to defend their people, and. they would do so. No such act3 as those of Murphy, and Stewart, of Ards, should go without resistance. However their toes became when in prison, resistance would be offered to the actions of such men. He and his hon. Friends would persevere in the course they had dictated for themselves, as certain as they would be ultimately successful. The Government could not succeed in their opposition, for they had not justice on their side. If four months' imprisonment was a proper punishment to give him because he advised the tenants to resist the unjust demands of the landlords, was four months' incarceration a righteous punishment for the blackmailing and robbery to which the people had been subjected for years? Perhaps the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would favour the House with his opinion on that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he knew, was well acquainted with law; but he came from an institution where there was no equity. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was not deficient in equity, and therefore he appealed to him whether the crimes and sentences he had referred to were at all parallel? Furthermore, he wished to point out that he was brought before a Mr. Hamilton, who refused him bail, committing him to Derry Gaol for eight days, and then for three days more. On a previous occasion he had found it his duty, from his place in the House, to attack Mr. Hamilton's salary. For that attack he gave his reasons. But Mr. Hamilton had his revenge. At the inquiry he (Mr. Blane) did not attempt a defence; it was not of the slightest use for him to do so. He was asked if he had anything to say, and he said he had not. Counsel for the Crown then said he was instructed by the Government to press for the utmost severity against Mr. Blane; and therefore he merely said he was sure the magistrate would pay

    319
    all due respect to the requisition of the Crown. The magistrate did so, and paid him off for his attack in the House of Commons upon his salary. He maintained it was a great public scandal to bring Members of the House before magistrates whose salaries they had attacked in the House. In a certain sense it made magistrates judges in their own cause. He might, it was true, have employed a wooden-headed barrister, for it would not have been difficult to find one, there being 1,300 wooden-headed barristers in Ireland. He was not, however, rich enough to employ one, and therefore he did not do so. He conducted his own case as best he could, and he lost his case. He would not have got one day less imprisonment if he had had the Solicitor General and the whole Bar of Ireland on his side. He regretted he had occupied the time of the House so long, but the matters he had referred to were so important and grave that he could not refrain from directing the attention of the Solicitor General for Ireland to them. There was scarcely a single item in what he had brought before the House which the hon. and learned Gentleman could defend, and as an honourable man he would not try to. If the matters were tabulated and put before the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would condemn them without hesitation. It was, he maintained, a great scandal that Members who had attacked the salaries of magistrates should subsequently be summoned to appear before those very officials. The practice gave magistrates opportunities for punishing their opponents.
    MR. O'HEAsaid, he should scarcely have obtruded himself on the House in the course of the debate, were it not for some of the very grave matters which had occurred in Ireland during the past three or four months. His hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Blane) had detailed to the House a statement of facts and a condition of things which, although he was a Representative of the people, had brought him into the position he occupied to-night—namely, the position of having a sentence of imprisonment absolutely hanging over his head. Well, he (Mr. O'Hea), occupying the position he did, must make the assertion that instead of his hon. Friend being under
    320
    a sentence of imprisonment, which inevitably would consign him for four months to a plank bed, he (Mr. O'Hea) himself was the individual to whom that sentence should apply, because all that his hon. Friend had done had been to honourably and manfully go into his constituency when he (Mr. O'Hea) had written to him saying that it would be inconvenient for him to go. His hon. Friend had gone and addressed meetings, and had stood between his (Mr. O'Hea's) constituents and the prosecution that was staring them in the face. He was thankful to his hon. Friend, and must express his thanks to him for having done a great portion of his work when his (Mr. O'Hea's) other work prevented him being on the spot; and in this connection he might refer to the administration of the Crimes Act in that particular constituency. His hon. Friend had referred to Father M'Fadden. Well, that reverend gentleman's name was known wherever the English language was spoken. Father M'Fadden was a pastor who knew what his duty was, who had always done his duty, and who had never shirked it. The feeling with him was that the post of the pastor was in front of the fold when the wolf was at hand, and there was rapine to fear. His position always had been in front of his fold, stemming the torrent of distress, putting his hand in his pocket, and even, so far as his slender resources were concerned, almost pauperizing himself in order to supply bread to the mouths of the famishing poor of his parish. This was rather fulsome praise for one whose good deeds should be recounted not in his lifetime, but after his death. However, the truth was there, and the truth had a right to be told; and he (Mr. O'Hea), as a parishioner of Father M'Fadden, was in a position to make this avowal, so far as the reverend gentleman's supreme nobility of soul was concerned. Well, Father M'Fadden had an estate in his parish, the tenants of which were standing on the very verge of eviction. He came to their rescue. It was his duty to do so. He examined into every single individual case. He had no idea, good, bad, or indifferent, of doing any injustice whatever so far as the landlord was concerned, and all that he wanted to do was to stave off the evil day and prevent such a recurrence of those things which had so often,

    321
    unhappily, marked the course of eviction, campaigns in Ireland. The blazing brand put to the thatched roof was a horrible thing to his mind. He did not want to see the crowbar put in operation against the mud or half-stone built walls. He did not want to see the people, some of them, perhaps, in a sickly or delicate state, thrown out on the roadside. He knew the circumstances in every individual case, and, knowing those circumstances, he believed it to be his bounden and imperative duty to do the best he could with a due regard to the interest of the landlord on the one hand, and a due regard to the well-being of the tenant on the other. The reverend gentleman impressed on the people in his parish, first and foremost of all, the obligation of being honest, and of paying their debts so far as they were in a position to do so. He impressed on the landlord, on the other side, the fact that in human concerns the maxim and the adoption of the principle of bear and forbear was a thing not altogether to be ignored. And having told the people their duty on the one hand, and having put before the landlord equally what his duty was on the other—because property had its duties as well as its rights—he succeeded in bringing about a settlement, the result of which was that nearly 60 per cent of all the arrears due from the tenants was wiped away, and instead of having all the careering of the crowbar brigade, accompanied with all the paraphernalia of horse dragoons, artillery, and all the rest of it, these people were, happily, in their homes, thanks to the exertions of that good man. Well, Father M'Fadden was asked to attend a meeting in an adjoining parish. He went to that meeting, and at that meeting he related what his experience had been so far as his own parish was concerned. He did no more than tell the people what his own parishioners had achieved—the success they had achieved. He was asked to be a mediator; the landlord was callous and inexorable, wanting his pound of flesh and nothing short of it, and he wrote a letter which would have brought the blush of shame to his cheek had it been possible for him to blush—had he not been a man of such despicable character—but, at any rate, it was a letter which would bring the blush of
    322
    shame to the cheeks of every single member of his family for generations. What did he say in his letter? Why, after fair terms had been offered, and every opportunity had been given to have a settlement come to and every opportunity had been spurned and virtually rejected, he said—
    "It is useless to deal kindly any longer with these tenants. I may tell you that I would not accept 99 per cent of all rent and coats due to me, as I am going to clear out the town lands, and it is my land that I want now."
    The district was remote, and poor, no doubt; but the more remote the district, and the more poor and the more homely the lot of the people, really the greater was the amount of pity which should be felt and the greater the amount of commiseration which should be entertained for them. Father M'Fadden knew from his experience what the threats fulminated against these people were. He (Mr. O'Hea) had it, and the information was statistical, that in the 66 cases where ejectment processes had been brought against the tenantry, the entire amount of rent endorsed on those ejectment processes came to £235, and the House would believe him when he said that the costs following these ejectments came to £346. That was a condition of things to which this rev. gentleman was not unfamiliar, and he thought that as he had succeeded so well in making peace in regard to the property at Gweedore, he might act as a mediator in the adjoining parish, where he was asked to go and address a meeting. Well, for so doing, he was brought before a learned luminary, with regard to whose capacity the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was so satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman, he might say, regarded every single Resident Magistrate in Ireland as one amply qualified and competent to carry out—he would use no more violent term than the administration of his Coercion Law. Well, Father M'Fadden was under sentence of imprisonment. He was served with a summons. The hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat had mentioned the circumstances under which the rev. gentleman was taken into custody. He (Mr. O'Hea) considered it was a downright piece of indecency to have carried out that process in the way in which it was carried

    323
    out. Father M'Fadden went to attend a requiem mass that was being celebrated for a Prelate, one of whose subjects he had been—a Prelate for whom he entertained a great respect, and a Prelate who was mourned by the entire Irish race. Father M'Fadden had not gone more than perhaps a couple of hundred yards from the church in which the requiem mass was celebrated—a church draped in mourning, by the way—than the hand of a policeman was placed on his shoulder and he was told that he was a prisoner. That, of course, was the law which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary considered perfectly proper so far as its applicability to Ireland was concerned. This rev. gentleman had his obligations to discharge and his duties and functions as a clergyman to attend to. He was arrested on the Friday, and an application was made to have him admitted to bail. One of those who tendered bail to any extent was his own Bishop, others were two magistrates and leading merchants in Armagh. If it had been a matter of—100,000, there would have been bail forthcoming to have had this priest restored to liberty; and, besides that, everyone who knew Father M'Fadden knew that, having entered into his bail-bond, he was absolutely certain, if alive, to appear to take his trial at the tribunal before which he was cited to appear. However, his flock were deprived of the benefit of his ministrations on the Saturday and the Sunday. He was kept in gaol, and the summons or charge was read over to him, and his reply was that the officer who took him into custody in the first instance might just as well have written out at the foot of the document giving him authority to make the arrest the sentence he was to receive. He had been informed, he said, that he was to be prosecuted, and he might as well go round to the gaol door and ask to see his cell, as to ask for the farce and empty form of a trial. Well, to pass from that and to come from Donegal down to the part of the country that he (Mr. O'Hea) knew best, an hon. Friend of his, who was now enjoying the luxury of a plank bed, published a newspaper in the City of Cork—The Cork Daily Herald. He referred to the Member for South-East Cork (Mr. Hooper). His right hon. Friend the Member for the College Green Divi-
    324
    sion of Dublin (Mr. T. D. Sullivan)—and he believed he was entitled to call him "right hon." in virtue of his position of Lord Mayor of Dublin—had been sent to gaol for an exactly similar offence; so that, so far as the Member for South-East Cork was concerned, there was not so much to be said by way of complaint. Unquestionably the hon. Member was responsible for what appeared in the paper—for the reports published in it, and so on. He was responsible for the publication in it of the proceedings of suppressed branches of the National League. He did not fear to do it. He had expressed his determination to do it, and even since his incarceration had caused it to be done over and over again, notwithstanding that it might be the cause of his being sent for a renewed term to enjoy the luxury of a plank bed. When the case against the hon. Member was brought forward, he (Mr. O'Hea) was struck very particularly by the way the case was presented on the part of the Crown. He (Mr. O'Hea) had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary say, from his place in the House, that there was no new crime created under the Crimes Act, and he had heard the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Stephen Ronan) inform the magistrate that the publication of these reports of the proceedings of the National League might have been a perfectly harmless thing before the passing of the Crimes Act; but that since the passing of that Act—the Act under which the action was brought—such publication was illegal and punishable by the tribunal before which it was cited. He (Mr. O'Hea) naturally asked himself the question—and many a person in Cork naturally asked himself the question—who was telling the truth? Did the Crown Prosecutor, who asked the Resident Magistrate to commit the hon. Member, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, state what was correct? Either one statement must be correct or the other. At any rate, on the strength of making that statement that the hon. Member's action would have been perfectly harmless before the Act of Parliament passed, the Crown Prosecutor asked the magistrate to convict, and the magistrate did convict. The hon. Member had gone to gaol, and had gone to gaol with equanimity. The block bed had no terrors for him, as he knew he was not a wrong-doer. He could

    325
    lay his hand upon his heart and say that between man and man, and so far as human obligations were concerned, there was not a single act of his life in respect of which he could accuse himself of having done wrong in word or deed to his fellow-man. Well, the whole community in the City of Cork was shocked at this indecency, as it was considered. Another of his (Mr. O'Hea's) hon. Friends—an accomplished and cultured scholar—he referred to his hon. Friend the Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane)—stepped into the gap. He took his pen in his hand and controlled and directed and guided the editorial department of The Cork Daily Herald. He did it with ability, because he was endowed with ability, and was possessed of very rare culture. The constituents of the editor who had been sent to gaol, believing that a gross scandal had been perpetrated, were determined that they would signify in some way their appreciation of him and of his public services. A requisition was drawn up and submitted to the Mayor of Cork, and in obedience to that requisition he convened a meeting of the citizens of Cork. At that meeting a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church made a statement. It was a bold statement; but he took the full and complete responsibility on himself for having made it. It was that, instead of having detectives watching and dogging the footsteps of Irish Members, they ought rather to have them watching the movements of some Government officials who had been committing a foul crime—that of corrupting young children. He said that while perpetrating this black and foul iniquity, those Government officials were actually screened and sheltered by those who were receiving their instructions straight from the Chief Secretary. The rev. gentleman having made this statement, his hon. Friend (Mr. Lane) who conducted The Cork Daily Herald, having been shocked, as every one else was shocked, by hearing this horrible story, wrote an article, the reading of which was—Who is the Offender? Who is the Government Official? He asked, and there was a line in large print in the Bills, '' Who is the Offender? '' In fact, up to the time of the meeting at Watergrass Bill on the 3rd December, which was addressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cork—from the interval during which the prosecu-
    326
    tion of the editor of The Cork Daily Herald took place, and after which the hon. Member took the management of that paper—that hon. Member constantly wrote article after article and editorial after editorial, asking how it was that when a grave charge was made against a Government official, the Government were supine and inactive. It was only when the hon. Member had pressed them on and shamed them into taking action that they at last did it. But, even then, they only acted in a half-hearted manner. But then, as he said, his hon. Friend addressed a meeting on the 3rd December. The hon. Member was subsequently—more than a month after—without having been served with a summons, arrested. The delay was inexplicable, for it was well-known that the hon. Member had been in the neighbourhood. It was a fact, although it might not be generally known, that an official of the Crown had said to the hon. Member, before his arrest, and alluding to his editorials in regard to the terrible charge brought against another official—"Why on earth don't you drop this thing? Why are you bringing these charges against Captain Plunkett, a Government official? "The hon. Member, however, continued to write, and he asked the authorities, through the medium of the paper, why they did not mind what they were about, and why they did not prosecute those whom he fearlessly designated as "miscreants." Well, the hon. Member was arrested, and it was no doubt owing to the ability that he brought to bear on the case that his sentence was so small. He (Mr. O'Hea) fancied that the Chief Secretary, if he were asked what imprisonment the hon. Member should have got, would answer that it should have been infinitely more than, as a matter of fact, was meted out to him. There could be no doubt that a light sentence was passed upon him in consequence of the ability with which he had conducted his defence. Then there had been other cases. There was the case of the newspaper printer, an humble but respectable man, whose name was sent in as a mere matter of business and of routine from the paper on the staff of which he was employed. This person was nothing more than a foreman tradesman on the establishment, and when there was a

    327
    prosecution his name was sent forward in order to comply with, some legal requirements. The man was arrested. He was summoned, and kept in custody for a considerable time; and after the authorities had suited their own convenience, and had fixed the time, he was brought before two magistrates. He was defended by a very eminent counsel, and the defence was that the man's position was thoroughly an ornamental one, and that though, no doubt, his name did appear at the foot of the newspaper as issued daily, he, as a matter of fact, was nothing more than an ordinary member of the printing staff. The son of the proprietor of the paper went into Court boldly and generously, and was examined. He said—
    "This man is not in the smallest degree responsible for what has taken place. If any person is to be held to be responsible, I am, and I avow my responsibility."
    Everybody admired that gentleman—everyone admired his self-sacrificing spirit; but still this poor printer—who, by the way, was in a delicate state of health—on two counts was sentenced in respect of each to one month's imprisonment. The counsel for the defence made a very reasonable request. He (Mr. O'Hea) was in Court at the time, and was able to say that the request preferred was a very reasonable one. It was that the sentence on the first count should be increased to two months, in order that the defendant might have an opportunity of appealing, and in order that a higher Court than that framed according to the ideas of the Chief Secretary should decide as to whether this man, who was only a mere tradesman, should be punished for what appeared in the paper, when the editor came forward and assumed all responsibility as to the article complained of, and said—
    "Let Corcoran be put on one side, and if anyone is to be placed on his trial I am prepared to take all responsibility."
    The magistrates, however, refused to put the sentence at more than one month to give the man an opportunity of appealing; and he (Mr. O'Hea) certainly said he admired the pluck of the counsel for the defence, and trusted that the independence which he displayed would never depart from the Irish Bar. This gentleman said he had done his best for his client, and the Bench could
    328
    do what they liked; but he left the Court with the conviction that they had not done complete justice, and that they had placed the defendant in a position which could not be regarded by any right - minded man with satisfaction. He would now refer to the case of his hon. Friend in the county of Clare. It was a fact that his hon. Friend had gone through Ireland from one part to another; he attempted no disguise; and although a warrant was out for his arrest, he never attempted to evade the service of that warrant. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for a speech that he made on one occasion; he appealed against the sentence; and immediately after the appeal, as he was leaving the Court, he was placed under arrest on a warrant charging him with having made an equally criminal speech in another part of Ireland. He was taken into custody and brought before another tribunal, and his trial was almost a mockery in connection with these travesties of justice in Ireland; the facts of the case were the same, and the gravity of the offence was not less than in the former case, and he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Application was made to have the sentence increased; but, he (Mr. O'Hea) said, by malice aforethought—it could be nothing else—the application was refused. The magistrate said that the sentence of one month was inadequate to the offence of the person charged. Why, then, did they not make the sentence longer, and give his hon. Friend an opportunity of appealing? Because they had got their instructions; and he (Mr. O'Hea) would say, in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the magistrates dare not depart from those instructions. If that sentence had been increased, and if his hon. Friend had been allowed to lodge an appeal, his hon. Friend would have been present at that moment in the House of Commons, and be doing his duty to those who returned him to represent them there. The Resident Magistrates had stated that they carried out the law as they found it—as it appeared on the Statute Book, and as they were able to read and interpret it. He would like to know what answer, on behalf of these irremovable gentlemen, could be given by right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite so far as the guilt or

    329
    innocence of his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork was concerned? His hon. Friend had been sentenced at Mitchelstown by two magistrates—Captain Stokes and Mr. Eaton. Now, Mitchelstown was a very long distance from Middletown. He knew the distance well, and also that Captain Stokes never adjudicated in Middletown in the ordinary course of his duties. The sentence was passed at Mitchelstown, and the appeal was heard at Middletown. He would ask, what business had Captain Stokes or Mr. Eaton in Middle-town on the day of the appeal? Captain Stokes was present, and he went into the magistrates' room and signed one warrant—the man who had originally sentenced his hon. Friend. This showed that the administration of the Act was dictated from Dublin Castle, and that the action of those gentlemen who sat in judgment on accused persons was action of which, if they had only the manliness and honesty to speak out, they would confess they were heartily ashamed.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, that the figures adduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) were exceedingly satisfactory as representing the condition of Ireland as to crime; and he (Sir Walter Foster) thought the most important part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman consisted of the figures by which he compared the agrarian outrages in Ireland during the six months before the passing of the Act, with those which occurred during the succeeding six months. The total result of the comparison was that there was a diminution of 26 per cent for the latter period as compared with the former. It was a scientific rule, in relation to statistics referring to any difficult social problem, to be always careful to exclude any other causes which might be in action. They had been told that there was another cause acting in Ireland—namely, the increased hope which existed in the minds of the Irish people that better administration and more regard for justice in Irish affairs would be granted to the people; and they had this fact, in support of this influence, that during 1886–7, before the passing of the Crimes Act, there was a considerable diminution in agrarian crime. Now, that diminution had been going on ever since the Tory Party in 1885
    330
    took a new departure with reference to Ireland and determined not to re-enact coercive legislation. The Tory Party having instilled that hope into the breasts of the people of Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had embodied the principles of conciliation in a Bill which, unfortunately, did not receive the assent of this House after the Parliamentary Election of 1885. The hope, however, had continued through succeeding years, and it had influenced the Irish people in such a way as to lead to a progressive diminution of crime. But if the right hon. Gentleman was not content to accept that explanation of his figures, there was another explanation to which he might possibly give assent. If he used those statistics as evidence that, after the passing of the Act of last year, there was a consequent diminution of crime, he (Sir Walter Foster) would tell him that there was another cause at work which came into operation earlier in 1886. Before this cause came into action, in the quarter immediately preceding it, he found that there were 306 cases of agrarian crime; whereas, in the succeeding quarter, they had the remarkable fact that the number of these crimes had fallen from 306 to 166. The cause he alluded to was the Plan of Campaign, and it had been followed by a diminution in crime nearly double in extent of that which the right hon. Gentleman claimed as the result of the passing of the Coercion Act. It was as logical to claim improvement for the one cause as for the other. It was, however, rather the concurrent operation of the two causes which he (Sir Walter Foster) had alluded to that had contributed to the steady improvement in crime of the Irish people, and he referred to these two causes as the probable explanation of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman had brought before the House. They had, at all events, the words of the Leader of the House that at present we had made no great advance in producing obedience to the law, or sympathy with the law, on the part of the Irish people. Surely the way to make the Irish people respect and sympathize with the law was not to carry it out with harshness and cruelty, but to bring its administration more into harmony with justice and the legitimate aspirations of the people. He did not think that any successful

    331
    attempt had been made to justify the indignities to which prisoners prosecuted under the Crimes Act, whether Members of that House or other persons, had been subjected; and the welcome which had been accorded to the hon. Gentleman the ex-Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. T. D. Sullivan), on his arrival in this country after his incarceration, did not, in his (Sir Walter Foster's) opinion, show that Englishmen approved the treatment which the Government had accorded to political prisoners; on the contrary, he thought that a feeling of exasperation and anger at an administration marked with cruelty had been steadily growing in the breasts of the English as well as the Irish people. Again, if this Act had been a great success, its action would have been to enable a greater number of convictions to be obtained by the officials than had been previously obtained. The right hon. Gentleman had said that paralysis of the "Courts of Law" was "the evil he had specially got to meet," and that evidence to convict was not forthcoming. If that evidence was now forthcoming as a result of the Act, they ought to have a larger number of cases brought forward than they had; but, on the contrary, they had a smaller number of offences with which the police had been able to grapple. This suggested that the Act was so far a failure in one of its chief objects. He believed they would obtain the sympathy of the Irish people with the law, not by passing cruel enactments, but by doing something more in harmony with the wishes of the people. The present feeling of antipathy to the law was as rife and vigorous 35 years ago in Ireland as it was to-day; and until law was brought more into harmony with popular sentiment they would not get in Ireland that obedience to the law which existed in this country. They had all been more or less pained that hon. Members of that House, and other persons equally worthy, should have been subjected to indignities under the provisions of the Coercion Act. He did not think that any attempt had been made to justify the manner in which the prisoners had been treated; and many thousands of English people felt that the men who were now suffering under the Coercion Act were men whose motives were almost, if not entirely, political. Their objects had been political in incurring the censure of the law, and their motives
    332
    were purely political; they had done no moral wrong; they had been endeavouring to carry out their political programme to the best of their ability; and in consequence they came within the category of persons suffering for political offences. Mr. Davenport Hill, who some years ago was Recorder of Birmingham, and an authority on the repression of Crime, said, with regard to political prisoners, and speaking of some men who were imprisoned for taking part in Chartist meetings in Birmingham—
    "I regret that of late years the distinction between political prisoners and ordinary criminals has been well-nigh obliterated. The general instinct of the civilized world in all ages has recognized the difference. Political offenders have been felt to be, if not exactly prisoners of war, yet bearing some resemblance to such captives. To keep their persons in safe custody, or even to take their lives on great occasions, gives no shock to public sentiment; but to subject them to degrading treatment, to crop their hair, clothe them in a prison dress, march them to and fro under the command of a turnkey, prevent them from supplying themselves with books and the comforts which habit has changed into necessaries, and above all, to lay harsh restrictions on the visits of their friends, is so revolting to the most ordinary sympathies, that magistrates and governors of prisons will not subject them to such indignities and hardships unless the Legislature has made their infliction imperative. The political prisoner, when his treatment is left to the ordinary feelings of mankind, is dealt with as a person in misfortune, who must undergo the sufferings attached to his position, but whose feelings are not to be wounded by contumely. I admit it would not be difficult to find instances in every age wherein the principle has been grossly violated, but such violations have been condemned by universal consent, whenever the excited feelings by which they were caused have subsided."
    He would commend that quotation to the careful consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; at all events, as a medical man knowing no distinction of persons, and looking upon all from that point of view as equal, he protested against the cruelty which inflicted no less than 22 hours' solitude out of the 24 on any man for offences of this kind. Such a prolonged strain upon a man who had been leading an active life and mixing daily with the crowd of his fellow-men was most likely to have the most mischievous effect upon his nervous system, and he did not envy the feelings of the Minister who inflicted it. They looked back with repugnant feelings on some of the horrors inflicted upon the political prisoners of old days;

    333
    but, at least, there was then a manly brutality which sent men to the gibbet and the block; whereas we had now a feline malignity and meanness in the methods which were a disgrace to the Ministers who enforced them and a degradation to the nation that allowed them.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887, AND LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—ACTION OF THE EXECUTIVE—RESOLUTION.
  MR. PARNELL, in rising to move the following Amendment:—
  "Humbly to represent to Her Majesty that the portion of the Irish legislation of last Session which was of an ameliorative character has tended to diminish agrarian crime, whereas the repressive legislation of the Session has done much to aleniate the sympathy and respect of Her Majesty's Irish subjects for the law; and that the administration of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, as well as much of the action of the Executive in Ireland, has been harsh, partial, and mischievous,"
  said: Before dealing with this subject, I wish to make a slight reference to the question of Procedure. I do not know, Sir, whether I shall be in Order in prefacing what I have to say by a slight reference to the question of Procedure. I merely wish to say, however, that I think we Irishmen have a very special interest in these days in facilitating the Business of the House generally—I will not say in facilitating especially the Business of the Government, although, of course, that is included in the Business of the House. Since the great Reform Act passed in 1885 this House has undoubtedly become an engine of democratic progress, and although that engine may have been temporarily diverted from its purpose, still we Members from Ireland are obliged since 1885 to recognize for the first time that we have as much interest in the progress of Public Business as any other section of hon. Members in the House. I have not had an opportunity of looking over the new Rules of the Government, and I should not be in Order in referring to them now; but I will only say this—that I believe we are prepared to go further than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government in this House and his Colleagues in improving the Rules of the House, so as to take as much as possible out of the House for the purpose of advancing the legislation and the business
  334
  of the country. Our course last Session was a difficult one, because we were then confronted with the most cruel Coercion Act, which we were obliged to oppose to the very last. It was our duty to do so. I regret the introduction of that Act, and the necessity for the bitter, stringent, and determined opposition we were obliged to advance against it; but the general public and the House will make a great mistake if they think the measure of our opposition to that Act will supply a means for estimating our general attitude as regards the Government Business or the Business of every section of the House this Session. I apprehend the Government have now done their worst in the direction of coercion so far as legislative enactment goes; but I apprehend we are only at the beginning of the exercise of coercion. But the Government having obtained their Coercion Act—which is probably the most stringent that ever entered into the minds of Ministers or men to conceive—we do not think the Government will ask for another. In any case, were it otherwise, and even had we the prospect of another Coercion Act before us—the Government can always obtain a Coercion Act independently of the ordinary Rules of the House—as was the case with the previous one—we should have no inducement whatever to oppose any real improvement that might be suggested by the Government, or from any quarter of the House, in the procedure of the House for the purpose of forwarding Public Business. On the contrary, looking forward as we do in the near future to the introduction of another Bill for the better government of Ireland, which will undoubtedly afford—not from these Benches on which I sit now, but certainly from the Benches opposite—unexampled opportunities for what is called Obstruction, it is more directly to our interests to assist the Front Bench opposite in diminishing those opportunities of Obstruction, and to assist to make it possible for the House of Commons hereafter to pass a Bill for the better government of Ireland. I wish also to refer to another matter, which is rather outside the scope of my Amendment. It is to some references made by Lord Salisbury to the action of the Conservative Party during the Session of 1885 with respect to the

  335
  Irish Members. Lord Salisbury was not in the House of Commons, otherwise I think he would have hardly ventured to commit himself to the statements he made in regard to what passed between the leading Members of the Conservative Party and the Irish Members in those days. He has endeavoured to make it appear that the alliance between the Members of the Conservative Party and the Irish Party was simply that of going into the same Lobby on one or two questions, and that the Tories would have certainly preferred if they could have gone into the Lobby by themselves; but, of course, they could not prevent the Irish Members going along with them. That is the innocent aspect which Lord Salisbury seeks to put on that Division by which his Party turned out the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and the Liberal Government by the aid of the Irish vote. Lord Salisbury also finds fault with the Liberals of the day because they have joined with people who are resisting the law of the land. He says this divides the conduct of the Liberals and the conduct of the Tories by a very sharp line, and promises that if, instead of joining in companionship with men of disorder engaged in resisting the enforcement of the law, they were to return to a legitimate form of alliance, he would have nothing further to say. But the Tory Party of that day went a good deal further than simply going into the Division Lobby for the purpose of turning the Liberals out; and it will not be denied in this House—although Lord Salisbury may deny it, not having been witness to the facts—that the Tory Party did go much further. We have had the statement the other day of my hon. Friend the Member for Derry City (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) that the then Conservative Whip and Patronage Secretary to the Treasury did give him to understand that when the Tories came into power the Coercion Act of that day would not be renewed. We have that statement made publicly, and it has not been denied by the Gentleman concerned. It is true that the present Conservative Whip and Patronage Secretary to the Treasury has denied the statement; but he was never accused of having made such an intimation. The understanding was conveyed by the then Whip of the Tory Party, who is no longer a Member of the House of Commons. Then we have
  336
  the denial of Lord Carnarvon that he and I are at one on the question of Home Rule. I did not say, and I do say, that Lord Carnarvon and I are now at one on the question of Home Rule. I do not know what Lord Carnarvon's views are now, but I know what they were in 1885. The statement which I made in 1885, when Lord Carnarvon was in this country, which Lord Carnarvon did not contradict, I make now—that Lord Carnarvon's views, as conveyed to me, or rather as we exchanged them in our interview, were absolutely identical. He expressed to me the strongest belief that only by the concession of an Irish Parliament could the Irish Question be settled, and that it was to be a Parliament, and that it was to be called a Parliament—that it was to have most extensive powers, even going as far as the right of protecting Irish industries by the imposition of protective tariffs. Lord Carnarvon says that he did not agree with the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). I never said that he did agree to it. That Bill was not in existence at the time of our interview, and we had not any opportunity of conversing upon it. But Lord Carnarvon was in favour of an Irish Parliament; and he undertook the Office of Lord Lieutenant, having those views. Having those views, with Lord Salisbury's knowledge, going a little further than merely walking into the same Division Lobby with Irish Members—he, with Lord Salisbury's knowledge, certainly after our interview, conveyed to me that he (the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland) was in favour of an Irish Parliament. Therefore, was I not right in supposing—as I undoubtedly did—that, holding these views, he would not have been made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland unless there had been a considerable feeling in the Cabinet that his views were right; much less would Lord Salisbury have agreed to his interview with me—I do not know that Lord Salisbury knew beforehand of his interview with me; but he certainly knew of it afterwards, because he has admitted that he did publicly. I was certainly under the impression that, dealing as I was with a man who was in the position of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, his statements and assurances were of no ordinary significance. Lord Carnarvon did a

  337
  little more than allow his Colleagues in the House of Commons to walk into the Division Lobby with the Irish Members. We are now told by Lord Salisbury that it is very naughty for English politicians to unite with people who are resisting the law of the land, or to have anything to do with men of disorder, who were resisting the application and enforcement of the law. But that is precisely what Lord Carnarvon did when he went over to Ireland. The Mayor and Corporation of Limerick, at the time of Lord Carnarvon's Viceroyalty, and for some year or two previously, during the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, had been resisting the law of the land most strongly; and, in fact, it had been canvassed by the supporters of the Conservative Party whether the whole of the Corporation of Limerick, including the Mayor, should not be arrested and held in durance on account of their action. They had refused to levy the rates decreed by the Courts in Ireland; they had refused to levy the police rate—a clear breach of the law—but Lord Carnarvon did not think it beneath him to associate with those men, because he invited them to the Viceregal Lodge at Dublin Castle to confer with him upon the subject, and to see if he could not persuade them, not to desist from their bad conduct, but to see whether they could not come to some compromise. I think that the proposition was that they should obey one-fourth part of the law, and not the remaining three-fourths. The Lord Lieutenant, unfortunately, happened to be ill at the time, and he actually invited these men of disorderly and unlawful character up into his bedroom, where he was in bed, and he gave them a very good lunch and a great deal of wise counsel. There is another matter I have to refer to about Lord Carnarvon, upon which I have never touched before. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members of this House that shortly after the Conservative Government of 1885 came into power we brought forward a Motion in reference to the conviction of three sets of prisoners for murder, conspiracy to murder, and treason-felony. They were the Maamtrasna prisoners, the Crossmaglen prisoners, and the Barbavilla prisoners. We asked that there should be inquiry into the conviction of
  338
  these prisoners, which had taken place during the Viceroyalty of Lord Spencer—an inquiry which Lord Spencer had refused, but which the Conservative Front Bench immediately they came into Office granted. This inquiry took place in respect of two out of the three sets of prisoners—namely, those of Crossmaglen and Barbavilla. Shortly before the General Election in 1885 an hon. Friend came to me in Dublin and told me that he had just been sent for by Lord Carnarvon, and that his Lordship evidently wished him to communicate what he had told him to me, and it was to this effect—that Lord Carnarvon had investigated the cases of the Crossmaglen and the Barbavilla prisoners, and had come to the conclusion that the latter were justly convicted, and that he could not interfere; but with regard to the case of the Crossmaglen prisoners he did not think that there was sufficient evidence for their conviction, and that he intended to liberate them forthwith. That was just before the General Election of 1885. I am under the impression that shortly afterwards Lord Carnarvon came to England, and I daily expected to see in the newspapers the anouncement that the Crossmaglen prisoners had been liberated. Those prisoners, however, were not liberated. I do not know the reason or the motive for that. It is possible that Lord Carnarvon waited until after the result of the General Election to liberate the prisoners convicted of the serious offences of treason-felony and conspiracy to murder. I should not have blamed him for so doing, because I can understand that it might have seriously injured the prospects of the Conservative Party at the polls if just before the General Election they had liberated the prisoners convicted of such grave offences. Whatever was the cause, these men were not liberated. As the result of the Election Lord Carnarvon came to England, and as it was useless for him to expect to convince the majority of the Cabinet then upon the subject of Home Rule he gave up his Office, in that way acting as a high-minded and most honourable man. These men—and I say this for the information of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland—were considered by Lord Carnarvon—according to the statement made to my hon. Friend, whose name could be given if Lord Carnarvon desires it—innocent of this offence, and he had

  339
  made up his mind to liberate them; but from that day to this they have not been liberated. I think it is a terrible comment on English rule in Ireland that prisoners who were held to be innocent of the crime of which they were convicted by one Viceroy belonging to the Conservative Government should be kept in penal servitude by the next Viceroy. I want to say one word with reference to the county government of Ireland. It would appear from all we have heard that England is, but Ireland is not, to be given county government, because it would be used as an engine to resist the Coercion Act. All I have to say is this—that marks the very great advance that has been made by the Conservative Party in the downward course of coercion. They came into Office stating their determination to carry local government for the Irish counties pari passu, or almost so, with local government for the English counties. We now find that in little more than a year of Conservative rule in Ireland the condition of the country has become so bad that it is impossible to intrust the Irish counties with the right of levying rates for building bridges and making and repairing roads. I now turn to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). It appears to me that he considers it sufficient excuse, whenever he is accused of excessive tyranny or maladministration in Ireland, to point to the Bench opposite and say—"You did the same thing, or worse, when you were in Office." When the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) complained of the excessive powers which have been given to the Resident Magistrates under the Crimes Act of last Session, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thought it quite sufficient answer to say that the majority of these magistrates were appointed by Lord Spencer. That may be, but Lord Spencer appointed these President Magistrates to administer the Coercion Act, but there was an appeal in every case to the County Court Judge. A similar appeal was promised in the Crimes Act by the Chief Secretary, but the right hon. Gentleman either forgot or broke his word—you may choose which you like. When we were in Committee on the Bill he said—"There will
  340
  be an appeal in every case to the County Court." He also promised the House that if there should be any legal technicalities in connection with appeals to the County Courts, the Government would not object to give a right of appeal to a still higher tribunal. Well, we know that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, by means of the special Rule of Urgency, contrived to pass a great part of the Crimes Act without discussion, and in that way he got out of his promise. There was no right of appeal given at all in the case, except that which already existed, and in all the 540 cases in which convictions had been obtained in the first six months only 112 appeals had been given, or about 1 in 6.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE-LAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The number is 373.
  MR. PARNELL: We have not the advantage of the statistics of the right hon. Gentleman; but I am certainly under the impression that the number is 540, collected from the newspapers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Up to the end of the year the number was 373. Possibly the hon. Gentleman may be right up to the present time.
  MR. PARNELL: The figures I have given comprise six months, which would be up to the 1st of February, but I am inclined to think that 540 is considerably under than over the mark up to this date. There have been only 112 appeals, but most of these appeals took place under the earlier working of the Coercion Act. It is only in cases of sentences over one month that appeals can be taken; but, under the ordinary-law, appeals can be made from the magistrate in cases of summary jurisdiction. During the first month or so it was the custom of the magistrate—probably they thought they were carrying out the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—to inflict sentences exceeding one month, which carried appeals; but the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with that. He was not satisfied with breaking his pledge, or with the action of the magistrates in endeavouring to hold him to his pledge. He went to Birmingham and made a speech, which was certainly the most extraordinary speech which was ever made by a Minister in his position. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have

  341
  imbibed a little of the genius of the country. There is much in that speech reminding me of the story of a certain don of Trinity College, Dublin, who was passing by the pump of the College one day when he found an unfortunate bailiff surrounded by a number of students, who were pumping water upon him. He said to them—"Boys, boys, whatever you do, don't nail his ears to the pump. Of course, it is no business of mine to interfere, but it would be a terrible thing if you nailed his ears to the pump." I need not say the hint was taken. The bailiff's ears were nailed to the pump. But the right hon. Gentleman did not go so far as this in a negative direction. He said—
  "I have been asked whether it would not have been an expedient thing if certain individuals, who have been guilty of undoubted breaches of the law, were not sentenced to less than a month, in order to prevent this scandal of men going about the country between the time of their condemnation and their appeal. The Executives has nothing to do"—
  like the gentleman at Trinity College—
  "and ought to have nothing to do with the sentences passed. It would be a gross abuse of me to interfere and to tell the Judges or magistrates that we, the Executive, were of opinion"—
  plainly intimating his opinion—
  "that such and such a sentence was or was not desirable. That is entirely beyond our province. We should consider ourselves guilty of a grave dereliction of duty if we did so."
  So the right hon. Gentleman went his way, satisfied that he had given the hint to his removable magistrates to nail the ears of this unfortunate man to the pump. Accordingly, since the speech, short sentences have been the rule. Amongst those who received short sentences to avoid appeal were Mr. Lane, M.P., Mr. E. Harrington, M.P., Father Matthew Ryan, and the newsvendor in Killarney. Alderman Hooper, M.P., it is true, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment; but there was no right of appeal, as there were two separate and cumulative terms. Then there was the case of Mr. David Sheehy, who was sentenced to three months and appealed; but, as he was leaving the Court, he was arrested, tried, and sentenced on another charge to one month, which prevented him from having the opportunity of appealing. He asked the magistrates to state a case on a month's sentence to the Superior Courts, but
  342
  they would not do so. The right hon. Gentleman, not content with having broken his promise, with having given this hint to his President Magistrates, commenced to make excuses, and retorted that the magistrates could state a case. But the matter being left to the discretion of removable magistrates, acting upon the speech of the Chief Secretary, I can but think that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman has been kept only to the ear. Well, now, Sir, I have dealt with this question of appeals. The only appeal that can be taken in Ireland in cases of sentences of a month is an appeal on a very narrow point of law to the Court of Exchequer; a matter which has only just been discovered, and which the right hon. Gentleman, apparently, had no idea of; but it is stated that in the forthcoming Judicature Act the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary intends to take away this right of appeal. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that his Coercion Act has largely reduced Boycotting, and somewhat reduced crime. The right hon. Gentleman might have given some credit to some other causes as well as to the Coercion Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that there has always been an intimate relation between agrarian crime in Ireland and evictions? Does he not remember that the leaseholders, numbering 120,000 heads of families, were admitted to the benefits of the Land Act, representing considerably more than half the rent roll of Ireland, probably two-thirds? Of course he will not admit that anything is due to English sympathy—a sympathy which has done wonders, worked miracles, changed the nature of the people, I would say, did I not know that their nature was good, and that nothing except the abominable treatment which the agricultural tenants and labourers have received at the hands of the Government of this country—the horrible sufferings and semi-starvation in which some of them have lived—would have caused the strained terms which have existed between them and their landlords. I might be excused if I were to say that a miracle had been wrought by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and that not all the exasperation produced by the contemptible Coercion Act of the present Government has been sufficient to

  343
  counteract the effects of what had been done by the Liberal Party. If no other result were ever to follow, I think that those Liberal Members who cheerfully, in the summer of 1886, faced the loss of their seats—many did lose their seats—in following the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in his great work of pacification, might feel themselves abundantly rewarded by the history of what has since happened in Ireland. We have these three great things working in the direction of pacification, quietude, and patience in Ireland, in addition to the Coercion Act of the right hon. Gentleman. I should have hoped that there would have been a still greater diminution of crime. There has been but a small diminution. Of course, there was not much crime at the commencement. But the right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that Boycotting is his strong card, and that if he could show that Boycotting in Ireland is a very disgraceful thing in itself he will justify his administration of the Coercion Act by showing a reduction in Boycotting. Well, now, as regards the figures of Boycotting, I do not know how far we can trust them. These figures are compiled I know not by whom. The right hon. Gentleman told us in a speech the other night that Boycotting was a term of art. There is a good deal of room in the compilation of statistics for art. We cannot tell how far we can rely upon the figures of the right hon. Gentleman; how far what may seem to be Boycotting to an energetic sergeant of police when he knows the right hon. Gentleman wants his report is really Boycotting. And until we know what these individual cases are, until we have the names of the people who are Boycotted, and can thus test the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's figures, we must take a great many grains of salt in the consumption of his statistics. The right hon. Gentleman was most unfortunate in the examples which he gave us for the purpose of inducing the House of Commons last Session to pass the Coercion Act. We find they are all fraudulent. They would not hold water; and the right hon. Gentleman has now been equally unfortunate in the one example which he has given us of Boycotting. After the expiration of six months he has only one case of Boycotting to sub-
  344
  mit to the consideration of the House of Commons, and he has been equally unfortunate also in the case of Mrs. Connell. The right hon. Gentleman said he would give an example of the kind of Boycotting which the Government were dealing with now. He stated that an old woman named Connell, 80 years of age, was the neighbour of a man who took an evicted farm, and that for this crime she was rigidly Boycotted; she was nearly starved; she lay on her bed for three days at Christmas time almost in a state of starvation, and was saved from death by a certain Mrs. Moroney. The right hon. Gentleman introduced this woman as "a certain" woman of Samaria, who was never heard of before, and who came to the assistance of Mrs. Connell. Hannah Connell swore that on the day she went to the police court she had to go into the barrack because she was afraid of the people, and that, before going into the barrack, she went into several shops in order to purchase bread, and was refused food in every case. She also swore that one of the defendants, who used to supply her with bread, said that after the Boycotting she could get no further provisions there. The right hon. Gentleman found a parallel to this case in the Dublin parson who dismissed his curate. Now, what is the true story of Mrs. Connell? In the first place, she is only a little over 50 years of age—really the right hon. Gentleman will have to keep a travelling doctor to go round and examine his patients. Mr. Redmond, who defended the persons charged with Boycotting this old—or rather middle-aged—lady, writes that Mrs. Connell is not a decrepit old woman of 80, but an active and strong dame of about 50, and that she lived upon the charity of the people whom she now prosecutes until Mrs. Moroney took her under her wing. In order to get up the prosecutions Mrs. Moroney one day sent this women Connell into the town, over a mile off, to buy bread, which she—Mrs. Connell—was in the habit of getting from Mrs. Moroney's shop. Mrs. Connell offered no money at any shop where she asked for provisions. She was refused, but the shopkeepers said that she had never bought bread in their shops in her life. She told Mr. Redmond that she was starving; but, in point of fact, she had a "pit" of potatoes in her house, and she had all

  345
  she wanted from Mrs. Moroney. She was a disreputable woman, and in one of the cases she came more than half drunk up to the table. Now, who was this "certain Mrs. Moroney" of the right hon. Gentleman? I will give her history. She is the chief landowner in that district. In 1881, after the passing of the Land Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, nearly all her tenants, being leaseholders, were excluded from the benefits of that Act. Consequently she fell foul of these tenants; and after that she evicted a large number of them and plunged the whole district into a state of confusion and uproar as long ago as 1881. She has continued in that attitude from that time to the present. She was Boycotted. None of the shopkeepers of the town would supply her; but she was a woman of means, and she set up a shop and hotel of her own to provide provisions for the emergency men whom she brought down for the purpose of occupying the evicted farms. At the time when she sent out Mrs. Connell to these shops to get up a case of conspiracy to Boycott against the shopkeepers, she also sent out two of her old servants, William M'Keown and Henry Kelly. They went to shops to which they had never been before, in order—as Kelly admitted on oath—to make up a prosecution under the Crimes Act. Kelly further admitted, on oath in Court, that they knew they would be refused—they had not money to pay for one of the things they asked for. They asked for them in obedience to Mrs. Moroney, and they could procure all they wanted at her publichouse and general shop. Now, I think I have said enough to show the nature of the solitary example which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward in order to show the horrible character of Boycotting. I could speak very strongly on this point, but I do not like to trust myself to do so. I think that possibly the right hon. Gentleman may have been deceived by his underlings as regards the character of the information supplied to him. But I do think he ought to be more careful before he undertakes in this House to take away the character of a nation, or of individuals, on such evidence as this. Well, now, Sir, I pass from the solitary and unfortunate example of this middle-aged lady, and I
  346
  return to the question of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. First of all I wish to say that I regret that the Government seem to have no idea of the gravity of the situation in Ireland. Things there are in a state of extreme tension. The people have been kept quiet by the causes I have mentioned. They have indulged in the strongest hope in the results of Parliamentary and Constitutional action. I think I am entitled to congratulate myself upon this fact. It is now 12 years since I first entered political life. At that time very few people in Ireland—not one in 10—believed in the efficacy of Parliamentary action. The Fenian Rebellion was only recently over, and the idea widely prevailed that revolution was the only means of securing justice to Ireland. All that is changed now. I asked my constituents to trust to Parliamentary action, promising them that we would not accept Office or become the slaves of any English Government. And the people have given us a trial, and they have now been largely admitted to the franchise. Now, the proportions are reversed, and nine out of 10 persons in Ireland believe in Parliamentary and Constitutional action. That is great progress to have made. I believe that that progress will not be undone—that the hands of the clock will not be put back by the puny attempts of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The Irish people will still continue to laugh at his coercion, and to suffer what he has in store for them in the future with a cheerful heart, and with the assured conviction that their country is on the eve of prosperity and progress. I say I could have wished that the Government were more fully sensitive of the gravity of the situation. The prices of agricultural produce revived last November, and it has helped the tenants in endeavouring to pay their rents. The Irish tenant will pay his rent as long as he can. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Is that denied? Who denies it? Hon. Gentlemen are dumb. But, "all the king's horses and all the king's men" will not get them to pay when. They have not the money. You say that the agrarian question is the whole Irish Question. Why, then, in the name of common sense, do you not settle it? Your own Supporters from the North, of Ireland warned you last year of the

  347
  fatal consequences of acceding to the Amendments of the House of Lords. You have now a breathing-time. Why do you not take advantage of it? What do you propose to do when the three years are up—the period for which the judicial rents were abated? We do not hear anything more now of the gigantic scheme of land purchase. How are you going to settle the agrarian question? Are you going to depend upon the Plan of Campaign? That plan has certainly proved most signally successful; for, with one exception, on the 50 estates, or so, where it has been adopted, the landlords either have conceded, or are on the point of conceding, the demands of the tenants—and that exception is Lord Clanricarde. I should like to know from the Government how they are going to settle this Land Question. It is time for them to be settling the point. I am myself going to introduce a Land Bill; but it will be a very small Bill compared with some that have gone before, but that is because the Government have taken my Bill bit by bit, and now there is not much of it left. I hope that they will take the last bit of it now, and thus settle the Irish agrarian question. They will then see if they have settled the whole Irish Question. If the Government believe in their own statements they will settle the Land Question, and so settle the Irish Question. I pass now to the hard usage the Government have dealt out to Mr. Blunt as compared with their treatment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). Both Mr. Blunt and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford went to Loughrea—both went to the Clanricarde estate. Both of them went on the eve of evictions that had either taken place or were about to take place, each stating that his object was Constitutional; yet, in the ease of Mr. Blunt, the meeting was proclaimed, and he was dragged about and sentenced to two months' hard labour, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford has held a meeting for precisely similar objects and has escaped scot-free. Will the Government tell us upon what principle they acted in these two cases? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, at Manchester, denied that a woman over 80 years and a child under 12 years had been
  348
  sent to prison under the Coercion Act. But such is the fact, nevertheless. They were sent to gaol—this old woman of 80 and this little girl of 12—for resisting several able-bodied men. In another case, the mother of a family of six children was sent to gaol in one week, and in the next the father of the same family—while the mother was still in gaol—was also convicted and sent to gaol. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he never sent little boys to prison for selling newspapers. That may be true; but that was because he could not catch them. He, however, sent a boy to gaol in Cork for refusing to sell a copy of United Ireland. A policeman wanted to buy a copy for the purpose of getting up a case against this itinerant seller of newspapers. The little boy was too sharp, and was not inclined to sell the policeman a newspaper, and he was forthwith taken off to prison. English readers, perhaps, do not know the character of many of the persons who have been convicted by the right hon. Gentleman. When he talks of criminals, they imagine some desperate persons similar to the criminals one is accustomed to meet with in the ordinary practice of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has prosecuted 12 Members of Parliament—since this Return was made out the number, I believe, has been increased—and has convicted 10. He has prosecuted nine Poor Law Guardians, all of whom have been convicted; three Town Councillors, all of whom have been convicted; four clergymen, two of whom have been convicted; 14 boys, nine of whom have been convicted; 38 girls, one under 12 years of age and one under 14, of whom 23 were convicted; and two old women over 70 years of age, both of whom were convicted. The right hon. Gentleman asked, if Resident Magistrates were appointed in London, why they should not be appointed in Dublin? The answer is, that they administer a very different law in London to what they do in Ireland. That is the evident answer, and I wonder he did not have it in his mind before he asked the question. But there is one significant matter about these Resident Magistrates to which I should like to call attention. The Resident Magistrates who have been most notorious for their partizanship and disregard of the decencies of the judgment seat

  349
  have been selected to try the great majority of the case a under the Crimes Act. Take the case of Cecil Roche, who, I believe, was not appointed by Lord Spencer. He has tried twice as many cases as any other Resident Magistrate, and has probably imprisoned about 150 people. One of his favourite occupations when he has no work to do on the Bench is to take a big stick in his hand and swagger up and down in front of the Court House. If he sees people gathering together in little crowds he turns the police on them. He will order some to be taken into custody, and will then sentence them. He was a briefless barrister, and was also a paid lecturer of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic League. It has been frequently stated—and it has not been denied by Mr. Roche—that at one meeting in England he used the words of an American gentleman to the effect that—"The loyal minority would fight against Home Rule till Hell was frozen over, and that they would then fight it out on the ice outside." At a meeting held at Dingle, in Kerry, a short time ago, he said that if the people did not behave themselves he could be wired for, and he would come immediately and keep them in order. Mr. Dillon, another President Magistrate, had a judgment summons out against him for £2,000 the very day he sentenced Mr. Blunt. Captain Stokes, who tried the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), and arrested him in the Appeal Court without a warrant, despite the order of the Recorder that he should not be arrested, has, I am informed, been promoted to the office of Divisional Magistrate. Captain Seagrave, another President Magistrate, said, in cross-examination, that he had been in that office about a year; that he had had no legal training; that he got his military training in South Africa; that he had never held a commission in the Home Army, and that he had tried and failed; and that he did not know in what Statute the Riot Act was unless he consulted a paper in his pocket. I have been a little more fortunate in my examples of Crimes Act magistrates than the right hon. Gentleman was in his examples of Boycotted old women. There is one other thing that I must draw attention to before I sit down, and that is the treatment of these political prisoners, because if they are not political prisoners they are
  350
  nothing. It is useless for the Government to say that these men are criminals. That plea has been urged by every tyrant in excuse for his tortures to his political opponents; and it will not avail the right hon. Gentleman now any more than it availed his Predecessors, or any of those infamous characters in ancient history who did not draw the line between political and other prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is not for him to draw a distinction between gentlemen and men who are not gentlemen. Nobody asked him to draw such a distinction. But we have insisted, and we shall continue to insist, upon a distinction being drawn between political and other offences. The great majority of the cases tried in Ireland under the summary jurisdiction clauses of the Crimes Act have not been cases of crimes, but of open and advised speaking, of publishing newspapers, and of editing newspapers. Can anything be meaner than the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the proceedings against the foreman printer of The Cork Examiner? He was tried under the Crimes Act for printing and publishing accounts of the meetings of suppressed branches of the National League. The right hon. Gentleman says that he will make no distinction between gentlemen and persons who are not gentlemen. Now, I charge the right hon. Gentleman that he distinctly shrank from prosecuting the editor or the acting editor of that paper, because he was a supporter of many of the right hon. Gentleman's friends in Cork, and he selected for prosecution the foreman printer, who had no more control over the policy of the paper than I have. Neither the editor, Mr. Crosbie, nor his son, the acting editor, was prosecuted, but the right hon. Gentleman put his hand upon the foreman printer, who had nothing to do with anything but the machinery of the paper, and sent him to gaol. Well, that is one example of the right hon. Gentleman's discrimination between gentlemen and men who are not. Now I take the case of the newsvendors. I think the attack of the right hon. Gentleman on the news-vendors is particularly atrocious. Of course, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, he is consistent in attacking men like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork—the editor of United Ireland—and others, but he flies

  351
  in the face of all his declarations when he takes up men who are earning their bread by selling National newspapers, and deprives them of their living. Here I think that some line should be drawn, and that if you think it necessary to go at the leaders of the National movement, at least you should have the decency to refrain from attacking men and women who cannot be responsible for the policy of the paper. Of course, the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to destroy the circulation of the newspapers; but he is afraid of attacking them at headquarters, because then he would be said to be interfering with the liberty and freedom of the Press. But he thinks that by attacking the vendors, the little boys who sell the papers, he will stop their circulation as effectually as if he stepped into the printing office. That is not an English proceeding. The late Mr. Forster was a strong and able man, and he dealt heavy blows against the National League. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary talks of suppressing the National League in certain districts. "Well, Sir, these suppressed branches are holding thousands of meetings, and a more contemptible exhibition of impotence than that of the right hon. Gentleman was never seen. The late Mr. Forster suppressed the Land League throughout the whole of Ireland at one stroke of his pen. He struck down the League in a night, and no branch of the Land League dared to hold a meeting from the time it was proclaimed. Well, there was a man. But the meetings of the suppressed branches of the National League are held just as if nothing had happened, as if the right hon. Gentleman was not in existence at all. There is as much difference between the administration of the right hon. Gentleman and that of Mr. Forster as between the scratch of a cat and a blow from the paw of the British hon. Now, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will, for the future, be a little more straightforward and a little more English—though, as he happens to be a Scotchman, I will say a little more Scotch—in his conduct. If he wants to suppress newspapers, let him suppress them; but let him not proceed against little boys and girls trying to earn a few pence, or against foremen printers, while he shrinks from proceeding against gentlemen merely because
  352
  they happen to be friends of his own supporters. That is not a method of administration which will gain him respect even from his own supporters, from his political opponents, or from the people of this country. In conclusion, I have only to say that I look with confidence to the future. Much as I am troubled about the irritation—the frightful irritation—which exists against the right hon. Gentleman, and his administration, and his neglect in appreciating the wants of the Irish tenants, I believe that, some way or other, we shall be able to manage to pull things through in such a way as to save the tenants from eviction in large numbers, and to avoid staining our cause or disgracing our English friends by acts of crime and blood. I am sure our people will be patient in the confident hope that in the near future they will see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in his rightful place, and coming forward with another great measure of peace and tranquillity for Ireland. I beg to move an Amendment to the Address, in lieu of paragraphs 10 and 11.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out paragraphs ten and eleven, in order to insert the words—"Humbly to represent to Her Majesty that the portion of the Irish legislation of last Session, which was of an ameliorative character, has tended to diminish agrarian crime, whereas the repressive legislation of the Session has done much to alienate the sympathy and respect of Her Majesty's Irish subjects for the law; and that the administration of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, as well as much of the action of the Executive in Ireland, has been harsh, partial, and mischievous."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): Mr. Speaker, I listened with the closest attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), in order that I might fully appreciate the grounds on which he presents his Amendment to the House, and I am sure I may ask with confidence the indulgence of the House while I lay my views before it with reference to the speech of the hon. Member. The first observation I have to make is that the greater portion of the speech of the hon. Member has had little or no reference to the

  353
  Amendment before the House; and my second observation is that, having regard to the serious nature of the charge which has been put upon the Paper against the administration of law and order in Ireland, the instances which he alleged against it are trivial in the extreme. I shall go through in detail the instances given by the hon. Member; but I should have expected, I am bound to say, that some more great and signal instances of the "harsh, partial, and mischievous" administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland would have been laid before the House. Before I proceed to the question of the administration of law and order, I must say one word about an important admission in the speech of the hon. Member. He admits that the legislation of last Session, which he also agreed was of an ameliorative character, has tended to diminish agrarian crime in Ireland. Now, Sir, that is an admission of improvement in the state of Ireland, and it is an admission that the improvement is due to the policy of the Government in some degree at least. The ameliorative legislation of last Session is the legislation of the present Government, and that, it is admitted, has tended to diminish agrarian crime. I think the country is to be congratulated on the admission of its improved condition, and the Government is also to be congratulated on the admission that some portion at least of the improvement is due to their policy, and that it has had the effect desired. I must also congratulate the hon. Member upon his conversion to those views; because there is a great difference between what he says now and what he said last year, when the Land Bill was about to become law. In that speech the hon. Member said—
  "Two hundred thousand tenants have been looking with some hopes to the proceedings in connection with this Bill. They will be bitterly disappointed, and will learn to trust those persons who told them not to look to Parliament for redress, but to look to methods outside the law and outside the Constitution, which, in the long run, have been the only arguments that Parliament have ever listened to."—(3 Hansard, [319] 1021.)
  Now, the hon. Gentleman admits that the Bill has had an ameliorating effect, and I cannot help remarking that that effect might have been greater if the hon. Member had used then the language he uses now. Now, Sir, the ad-
  354
  ministration of the law has been arraigned. It was arraigned in a speech on the Address to Her Majesty by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The Government does not shrink from a full and strict inquiry into its administration of the Crimes Act. It is the right of Parliament to examine the action of the Executive, and when the Executive applies for additional powers to Parliament it may be fairly called upon to give a full and particular account of its administration of those powers, and that account we are prepared to give. But in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian a charge was brought against the Government of so grave and sweeping a character that it is impossible to exaggerate its importance. That charge was no less I than this—that, having obtained an Act I for the repression of crime, they used I that Act not against crime, but against combinations perfectly lawful. A graver accusation could not have been brought against the administration of the law. How is it borne out? The right hon. Gentleman in his speech used these words—
  "I am sorry to say the first suggestion is that our assertions of last year are verified that the Act was not an Act aimed at crime; it was an Act aimed at combination as apart from crime—combination which did not, to use the expression of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Duncan), fatally blossom into crime—which did not develop itself in crime, and even that allegation of ours which was so much contested and which was treated as almost ridiculous is verified; that not even combination was the sole object of the Act, but that exclusive dealing by Irish Nationalists was to be made a punishable offence. I am bound to say that it appears to me that, as far as I have read the accounts of some of these convictions, the simple act of exclusive dealing by an individual has been made a crime."
  A graver accusation could not be brought against the administration of the law; and how has it been borne out? I ask, Sir, this question, what are the two combinations against which this Act is practically directed? They are, in the first place, that combination known as Boycotting; and, secondly, the Plan of Campaign. I will not take up the time of the House by arguing that the conspiracy known as Boycotting is a criminal conspiracy; it has been held so by the Judges of the land, and the right hon.

  355
  Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, when he was responsible for the government of Ireland, in 1882, was of the same opinion. I will not quote his definition of Boycotting; but I will quote what I do not think has been so often quoted. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I may have said, and I say now, that I have a perfect right to deal with one man rather than another, and even to tell people that I am doing so. But that has nothing to do with the combined intimidation exercised for the purpose of inflicting ruin and driving men to do what they do not want to do, and preventing them from doing what they have a right to do."
  There we have the distinction drawn between the exclusive dealing which is lawful, and that which he now calls exclusive dealing. It cannot be said that Boycotting is different now from what it then was. Sir, I will read a passage from a speech reported in The Cork Daily Herald of February 9, 1888, containing a definition of strict and most rigid Boycotting—
  "We put the most rigid Boycott on Cremin in every other walk of life. We deal with no one who supplies him with goods. Whoever works for Cremin must work for him alone. Whoever associates with Cremin must have him for his sole companion, and this not for a spurt of a month or two, but until Cremin throws up the farm he has grabbed, and makes ample compensation to the boys against whom he has falsely sworn."
  Boycotting is now what it was before; it is a criminal conspiracy, as it was then, to be put down by the law; and why is it now to be called merely exclusive dealing, and compared to a mere quarrel between a rector and his curate, and to other cases of exclusive dealing, some of which may have been matters of bad taste, not one of which approached to crime? What is the other combination against which this Act has been directed? It is the conspiracy known as the Plan of Campaign. What is the Plan of Campaign? The Plan of Campaign is a combination among the tenants of an estate to this effect—"We will hold our farms, and, holding them, we will ourselves dictate the rent; we will pay a portion of the rent measured by ourselves to our own agents, not to yours, who will transfer it to you if you choose to accept it, and, if not, we will fight you to the last extremity with your own money—all the while, remember, hold-
  356
  ing our farms against you." Will any lawyer with a sense of responsibility stand up in this House and say that a combination for this purpose is not a criminal conspiracy? We have not had a definition of it from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, because it had not been invented when he was responsible for the government of Ireland, or, no doubt, we should have had one. But, in the absence of that definition, we have something to go upon. This conspiracy has come before the Judges of the land, and one of them on the Queen's Bench has declared that it is clearly, distinctly, and absolutely illegal, and that no doubt whatever can be entertained on the subject. This is the second combination against which this Act was directed. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, by crime, outrage and murder? In 1882 he spoke of such crimes as being the sanction of Boycotting, and so now they may be described as the sanction of the Plan of Campaign. But, Sir, it is not a question of whether they lead to outrage or murder—the combinations are themselves crime. It does not matter whether they lead to the other crimes of outrage and murder; they themselves are criminal, and every man who engages in them is guilty of an offence against the ordinary Criminal Law of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), who was recently Chief Secretary for Ireland, said that the two coercive conspiracies are, in his opinion, lawful combinations; but I confront him with the opinion of his Leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian as to the one, and the opinion of the Judges as to the other. I am not going to re-open the question as to the suppression of certain branches of the National League. I will only point out that it was suppressed in those districts only where it was shown to the satisfaction of the House of Commons that its operation was to encourage those two illegal conspiracies of Boycotting and the Plan of Campaign. Therefore, in so far as it has been interfered with by the Government, it has come into precisely the same category of inciting to unlawful acts and unlawful conspiracies. What, then, becomes of the statement that the administration of the Crimes Act has been directed against what is not crime,

  357
  but against political opponents? Is it suggested that it has been so administered as to convict innocent persons and acquit the guilty? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] I suppose that is the meaning of the attack on the tribunals by whom the Act is administered. When we refer to the tribunals created by the Act of 1882, our argument is described as the tu quoque argument, or the argumentum ad hominem. But it is really much more. When the Bill of 1882 was introduced, the then Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), adopted exactly the same tribunals for exactly the same duties, and declared that it was a remedy for the worst of all evils; and after that Bill was passed, credit was claimed for its efficient working. After that Act had been working for years, I should like to know when it was discovered by the right hon. Gentleman that his tribunals were not fit to try these cases? When did the Government of that day announce that discovery? On the contrary, they took credit for the work done by these tribunals. Now, as to the President Magistrates upon whom the present attack has been made. There are 73 in all, and, of the 73, 60 were appointed by Lord Spencer, or retained by him when he revised the list. Under the Act of 1882 one member of the Court must be certified as having legal knowledge. Thirty of these gentlemen are now certified; 20 were so certified by Lord Spencer, and of the other 10, three are practising barristers. It has been suggested in this debate that before these tribunals a trial and a conviction are very much the same thing; but, whereas up to the end of 1887 there were 659 trials, I find there were only 373 convictions. With reference to the question of appeals, the statement was made, no donbt inadvertently, by the hon. Member for Cork City, that under the Act of 1880 there was an appeal in every case, whereas, under the present Act, the appeal is only the same as in ordinary Petty Sessions cases. Well, the fact is that the provision in the Act of 1882 is identical with the provision in this Act. And therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman's references to what occurred in the House are not more accurate than his references to the Act of 1882, his case as to appeals is a very poor one. I find in
  358
  the speech of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, as reported in The Times, this passage—
  "One need not be a lawyer to understand that there is no class of cases so delicate, so important, requiring such nicety and precision of legal training, as cases turning on the effect of words in an Act of Parliament or the construction of those words."
  The right hon. Gentleman was thus contemplating the decision by the Resident Magistrates of legal questions. Then the hon. Member for Cork City has said that it was within the discretion of magistrates whether they should state a case. That is not so. The complaint of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne is that the decision of legal questions must rest with Resident Magistrates. The fact is that, no matter whether the sentence is one month or six months, the prisoner has the right to have a case stated for the Superior Court, unless the magistrates should consider his appeal to be frivolous. But even in that case, if it can be shown to the Superior Court that the application is not frivolous, a case must be stated. Now, a large number of appeals have been taken from the decisions of the President Magistrates, and I think it is overlooked in this discussion what has been the result of those appeals. Those appeals go to the County Court Judges, who have nothing to hope or to fear from the Government. Up to the end of last year—and I am aware of no case since—the result has been that only one single case has been reversed by the County Court Judges. In the case which was reversed, additional evidence was produced which was not before the Court below. Thus the decisions of the removable magistrates have been confirmed by irremovable magistrates in every case except the one I have quoted. Reference has been made in the course of the debate to a case in which it was said that the Court of Exchequer reversed the decision of some magistrates at Killarney. I will state the precise reason why the Court of Exchequer reversed that decision. There was a prosecution against, I think, five persons for Boycotting. Evidence was given by Mrs. Curtin, whose name is well known to the House, in one case only; but that evidence had not been formally given, as against each of those persons. It bad only been taken against one of

  359
  them, and the learned Chief Baron of the Exchequer admitted that if the evidence of Boycotting had been given in all the cases as it could have been given by Mrs. Curtin, the matter being personal to herself, the convictions would have been good. The decision was reversed because the evidence heard orally before the magistrates was not taken down in writing in each case, and therefore was not available for the prosecution in the case before the Court of Exchequer. I now pass to instances quoted by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell). He referred to one case of the Boycotting of a tenant farmer (Connell), which the Chief Secretary had mentioned. The hon. Member's statement of the case differed from that of the Chief Secretary, but the latter stated the view of the facts which was adopted by the magistrates who tried the case. The persons charged, having been sentenced to three months' imprisonment, of course have a right of appeal. We may, therefore, fairly suspend our judment on the conflicting statements of the case until the appeal has been decided. The next case to which the hon. Gentleman referred was that of Mr. Blunt. He asked why Mr. Blunt was treated so differently from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). Well, has the House before it the circumstances in which the meeting of October was held at Woodford? That meeting was a continuation of a meeting held on a previous occasion. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Why, only to-day I saw in the papers a reference to the meeting of October 16 as a preliminary meeting. That torchlight meeting, at which the Proclamation in Her Majesty's name was burnt, was a preliminary to Mr. Blunt's meeting of October 23. It is evident that a meeting may, in certain circumstances, be permitted, when a similar meeting in other circumstances would be unlawful in the same place. Then the hon. Member made an attack upon Mr. Cecil Roche. I think it was ungenerous to describe Mr. Roche as a briefless barrister, and to refer to some old platform utterances of his. That gentleman was appointed by Earl Spencer to the very responsible post of Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act. [Laughter from the Irish Members.] Surely the position of Sub-Commissioner
  360
  is a position of responsibility; and I have no doubt Earl Spencer selected him for his merits, and I think he made an uncommonly good selection. It was somewhat ungenerous to refer to language which Mr. Roche used upon the hustings long ago; I dare say even hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have occasionally used strong language of this kind. I could understand the reference if the language had been used after his appointment to a judicial position; but to rake up circumstances in which strong language was said to have been used at a former time, in order to attack Mr. Roche's character, is certainly ungenerous. The hon. Member was also ungenerous to another gentleman to whom he referred. The only fact alleged against this person is that judgment was once entered against him. To suggest that a gentleman is necessarily unfit to act as a magistrate because a judgment has been entered against him is an argument which will commend itself to very few. As to Captain Seagrave, the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. He stated that Captain Seagrave was supposed to have been selected for his legal knowledge, but that was not the case. The only accusation brought by the hon. Member against Captain Stokes was based upon his detention of the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) at the close of his trial. The hon. Member's appeal having been dismissed, he reverted to his original position of prisoner under sentence; and it cannot be contended that a prisoner is to be allowed to walk out of Court pending the preparation of a warrant. Therefore, Captain Stokes was perfectly justified in arresting Mr. O'Brien directly his appeal had been refused.
  MR. CLANCY: The Recorder said Mr. O'Brien was perfectly at liberty to leave the Court.
  MR. MADDEN: My recollection is that he said—as far as he was concerned. He had nothing more to do with the matter. Another of the trivial cases which have been brought forward to sustain the heavy charge of the hon. Member for Cork City is that of the foreman printer of The Cork Examiner, who, it is alleged, was prosecuted instead of another person. I am informed that the man who was prosecuted was the only person whose name

  361
  appeared upon the register as proprietor of the newspaper, and the only person against whom proceedings could be taken. With reference to the observations made about newsvendors, I have to say that no newsvendor has been arrested or prosecuted until fully cautioned; that these prosecutions have only been instituted in the counties of Kerry and Clare, where the dissemination of the principles contained in certain newspapers was especially dangerous; and further, that no one has ever been punished for selling the newspapers without being given the option of undertaking not to repeat the offence. I submit that these prosecutions furnish no evidence of a harsh or partial administration of the law. I have some figures which supply a complete demolition of the suggestions that have been made; they are an analysis of a Return of the offences for which 373 persons were convicted under the Crimes Act in 1887. The numbers are—35 cases of intimidation, 100 riot and unlawful assembly, 19 criminal conspiracy, 18 taking forcible possession, 175 resisting and assaulting constables or bailiffs, 7 for inciting to such offences, and 19 for publishing illegal notices of suppressed branches of the National League. Will anyone say that these persons were convicted for acts unconnected with crime? Is there any foundation at all for the suggestion that has been made, that this Act has been put into force against persons who were merely partakers in lawful combinations as distinct from crime? I have gone through the cases referred to by the hon. Member, and I submit that the result of the investigation of the working of the Crimes Act has been to confirm the view that it has been wisely and temperately administered, and administered absolutely without distinction of persons.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Sir George Trevelyan,)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Lea, Sir James Corry, Sir William Ewart. Mr. John Redmond, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Jordan.)
  SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 86.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. LEAsaid, that last Session the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant stated that this Session he would move for a Select Committee to consider the question of the sale of liquor on Sunday in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, he believed, intended to move for the Committee on Thursday, and as it was only the proper course that the Bill should be referred to that Committee, he (Mr. Lea) would not do more now than move the second reading of the Bill. He heard the Government were prepared to assent to the second reading, on the understanding that after that stage he should move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Irish Sunday Liquor Question. He begged to move the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Lea.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that on the part of the Government be desired to assent to the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding, suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Lea), that after it was read a second time it should be referred t) a Select Committee, which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) proposed to move for on Thursday next. He did not suppose, under those circumstances, it was at all necessary that the discussion should be prolonged.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  MOTIONS.

    PLACES OF WORSHIP SITES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. John Ellis, Bill for giving further facilities for the acquisition of Sites for Places of Worship, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Burt, Mr. M'Arthur, and Mr. Henry Wilson.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 93.]

    AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES RATING BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Seale-Hayne, Bill to divide Hates between Landlord and Tenant, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland, Mr. Gobb, Mr. Cossham, and Sir Bernhard Samuelson.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 94.]

    BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Woodall, Bill to amend an Act of the thirty-fifth, and thirty-sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter ninety-one, intituled "An Act to authorise the application of Funds of Municipal Corporations and other Governing Bodies in certain cases," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Woodall, Mr. Richard Chamberlain, Mr. Picton, Sir Albert Rollit, and Mr. Woodhead.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 95.]

    LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to further continue and appropriate the London Coal and Wine Duties.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Fowler, Mr. Baring, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Colonel Hughes, Mr. Webster, Colonel Duncan, Mr. Seager Hunt, and Mr. Wootton Isaacson.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 96.]

    HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
    On Motion of Lord Henry Bruce, Bill to further amend the Law relating to Dwellings of the Working Classes and the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Acts, 1875 to 1885, ordered to be brought in by Lord Henry Bruce, Major-General Goldsworthy, Sir William Plowden, Mr. Howell, and Mr. White.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 97.]

    OFFICE UNDER THE CROWN (VACATING OF SEATS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Vacation of Seats by Members of the Commons House of Parliament accepting Office under the Crown, ordered to be brought in by Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Francis Stevenson, Mr. Edmund Robertson, and Mr. Seager Hunt.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 98.]

    EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
    Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the Laws existing in the United States and elsewhere on the subject of the Immigration of destitute aliens, and as to the extent and effect of such Immigration into the United Kingdom, and to report whether it is desirable to impose any and, if so, what restrictions on such Immigration, with power to send for persons, papers, and records."—(Captain Colomb.)

    PRINTING.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in all matters which relate to the Printing executed by Order of this House, and for the purpose of selecting and arranging for Printing Returns and Papers
    364
    presented in pursuance of Motions made by Members of this House.
    The Select Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Raikes, Mr. Whitbread, Sir George Russell, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, and Mr. Jackson.
    Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

    KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Sergeant at Arms.
    The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Herbert, Mr. A. H. Acland, Mr. Agg-Gardner, Mr. Biggar, Mr. William Corbet, Baron Dimsdale, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Flower, General Goldsworthy, Colonel Hambro, Viscount Lewisham, Mr. Marjoribanks, Baron De Rothschild, Mr. Sheil, and Colonel Malcolm.
    Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Mr. Herbert.)

    LIFE LEASES CONVERSION BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Edmund Lechmere, Bill to provide for the conversion of leases for lives into leases for years, ordered to be brought in by Sir Edmund Lechmere, Mr. Hastings, Sir John Puleston, and Mr. Radcliffe Cooke.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 99.]

    ECCLESIASTICAL CONTUMACY BILL.
    On Motion of Colonel Sandys, Bill to substitute deprivation for imprisonment for contumacy in proceeding under the Church Discipline Act of 1840, and "The Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874," ordered to be brought in by Colonel Sandys, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Wardle, Mr. Joicey, and Colonel Saunderson.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 100.]

    HARES PRESERVATION BILL.
    On Motion of Colonel Dawnay, Bill to enact a "close time" for Hares, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Dawnay, Sir John Lubbock, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Dillwyn, and Mr. Lawson.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 101.]

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Charles Acland, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays in the County of Cornwall, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Acland, Mr. Bickford-Smith, Mr. Bolitho, Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Courtney, and Mr. M'Arthur.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 102.]

    ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Bryce, Bill to secure to the public the right of Access to Mountains and Moorlands in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bryce, Mr. J. C. Bolton, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Donald Crawford, Sir H. Roscoe, and Mr. Samuel Smith.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 103.]

    ALLOTMENTS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Cobb, Bill to amend "The Allotments Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cobb, Mr. Channing, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Herbert Gardner, Mr. Arthur Acland, and Mr. Winterbotham.
    Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 104.]

    BEER ADULTERATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Quilter, Bill for better securing the purity of Beer, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Quilter, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Baron Dimsdale, Mr. Heneage, Viscount Wolmer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Herbert Gardner, Mr. Francis Stevenson, and Mr. Gurdon.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 105.]

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable owners and occupiers in burghs, wards of burghs, parishes, and districts in Scotland to prevent the common sale of Intoxicating Liquors, or otherwise to have effectual control over the Drink Traffic within such areas.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'Lagan, Mr. Lyell, Dr. Cameron, Mr. Mackintosh, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Stewart, Dr. Clark, Mr. Munro Ferguson, and Mr. Thorburn.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 106.]

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Norton, Bill to amend "The Friendly Societies Act, 1875," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Norton, Viscount Folkestone, Mr. Hoyle, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr. Llewellyn.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 107.]

    UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW (ST. MUNGO'S COLLEGE) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Baird, Bill for establishing in the East end of Glasgow a College of the University of Glasgow, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Baird, Mr. Caldwell, and Mr. Mason.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 108.]

    MUNICIPAL RATES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Craig, Bill to make provision for the making, assessment, and collection of Municipal Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Craig, Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Dodds, and Sir Albert Rollit.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 109.]

    OCCUPIERS' DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Whitmore, Bill to relieve Occupiers of dwelling houses and lodgers from Disqualification as Voters at Parliamentary Elections by reason of temporary absence or service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Hozier, and Mr. Mowbray.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 110.]

    BURIALS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Burial Law.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Osborne Morgan, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Illingworth, and Mr. Richard.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 111.]

    BRITISH AND IRISH INDUSTRY BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Howard Vincent, Bill for the Defence of British and Irish Industry, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howard Vincent, Mr. Charles Gray, Mr. Brookfield, Mr. Norris, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Farquharson, Mr. Byron Reed, and Mr. Maple.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 112.]

    METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE EXPENSES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Webster, Bill to amend the Law in regard to the Fire Brigade Expenses, Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Webster, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Mr. Isaacs, and Mr. Maple.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 113.]

    MINING LEASES (CORNWALL AND DEVON) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Charles Acland, Bill to amend the Law relating to Mining Leases in Cornwall and Devon, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Acland, Mr. Bickford-Smith, Mr. Bolitho, Mr. Courtney, Mr. M'Arthur, and Mr. Seale-Hayne.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 114.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND)— THE RETURNS—QUESTION.
EARL SPENCERasked the Lord Privy Seal, When the Returns promised in "another place" in reference to Ireland would be presented; what the nature of the Returns as to the condition of Ireland during the last six months would be; and whether the noble Earl proposed to present the Returns to their Lordships?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN), in reply, said, that the usual Return showing the agrarian outrages falling under each head of offence, in each county in Ireland, would be made. Those for the September and December quarters of last year had already been laid on the Table of their Lordships' House last Thursday. On Friday his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary laid on the Table of the House of Commons a supplementary Return, which had been moved for, and which would, be found to be analogous to that presented by Sir George Trevelyan in February, 1883, showing the distribution of those offences—that was, the number reported in each month of the years 1886 and 1887, and in the month of January, 1888. His right hon. Friend

243
had also laid on the Table of the other House a Return showing the number of cases of Boycotting and the number of persons affected thereby in each county up to the 31st July last and up to January 31st, 1888. The latter Returns would be circulated in the other House that day (Monday); and if his noble Friend opposite wished to move for them, they would be laid on the Table of their Lordships' House and circulated as soon as possible.
LORD HERSCHELLasked, whether the noble Earl would have any objection to lay on the Table a Return showing the number of proceedings under the Crimes Act; before what magistrates the proceedings took place; what the nature of the charge and the result? Also, whether he could give a Return of the number of meetings, or attempted meetings, which had been brought under the notice of the authorities; and also the number of offences which had been reported, and whether prosecutions had taken place or not?
EARL CADOGANsaid, he would hardly like to give a direct reply without consultation with his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but perhaps the noble and learned Lord would repeat his Question on a future day.
EARL SPENCERsaid, he thought it would be desirable that all the Returns presented to the House of Commons should also be presented to their Lordships, and he would therefore move for them. He should like to know if the Lord Privy Seal could also present a Return which he thought had an important bearing on the condition of Ireland, and which was made to the Government, at all events, if not made public, when he was in Ireland, and that was a Return of what were called derelict farms—farms from which the tenants had been evicted, and which the landlords could not let? He was quite aware that no Return based upon this information had been published; but it would be important if a Return on this subject could be laid upon the Table. It would also be interesting to have a Return of the number of persons partially or wholly under police protection. Such a Return might be given for certain periods before and after the passing of the Crimes Act, so as to enable a comparison to be made between the two
244
Periods. He considered these last would be of great service.
EARL CADOGANsaid, he must ask his noble Friend to put the Question in reference to the last-mentioned Returns again upon Thursday next, and during the interval he (Earl Cadogan) would consult his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and give an answer on that day.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.