Sir, I have to move that the Arrears (Ireland) Bill have precedence, on every day for which it is put down, of all other Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion except the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill. I have postponed making this Motion until to-day, because when we commenced proceedings on the Prevention of Crime Bill I had no means of forecasting what would be the duration of those proceedings, or what would be the amount of pressure on the time of the House, and unless there were considerable pressure on the time of the House I did not wish to make a Motion of an innovating character. But, in the present circumstances, there is no need of any detailed justification upon making this Motion, so far as the immediate sub- ject-matter is concerned. The House is aware, from many previous declarations, that the Prevention of Crime and the Arrears Bills are both, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, absolutely necessary to be passed into law, and to be passed with such despatch as a just consideration of their provisions will allow. I do not know whether there is any disposition to contest that proposition generally; but I will not detain the House by dwelling on it. But intimation has been given, and not unreasonably, considering that we have now reached the 20th of June, that it would now be expected that the Government would give some account of their general views, as far as time permits, with regard to the further transaction of Public Business in the House; and, Sir, it is quite natural that when the Government are asking for time to push forward Business for which they are more immediately responsible, other Members of the House, who have business of their own in which they take a deep interest, should wish to be assured that the Government are not going to take advantage of the facilities that may be given to it for the purpose of giving any unfair precedence to measures, either which they have introduced or which they may intend to introduce, over Business in charge of independent Members. Of course, the House is aware that the Prevention of Crime Bill occupies, and has all along occupied, the first place in the view and intentions of the Government. As regards the intentions of the Government with respect to the Arrears Bill, I wish to say that, with the consent of the House, I should desire to pass it through Committee pro forma. The House is aware that that will in no manner diminish the privilege of any Member of discussing any portion of this measure, either on the Motion to leave the Chair or in Committee. But there are two or three changes which we wish to introduce into the Bill, and it is for the convenience of the House that changes of the kind should be embodied in the text of the Bill, rather than that a number of Amendments should be on the Paper in the name of the promoters of the Bill, possibly causing some confusion and some difficulty to other Members in giving Notice of Amendments which they may wish to propose. The Amendments which we wish to introduce into the Bill are already in type, and I believe may be distributed to-morrow morning, and the Bill committed pro forma on a future day. The Amendments we propose to introduce are substantially these. In the first place, there is an Amendment which is no alteration of the intention of the Bill. We are not quite satisfied with the definition in the Bill as it stands in regard to the particular words "accrued due," in the 1st clause, and in regard to determining the important point what rents paid may be set down as accrued in 1881. We wish to make our original intention, to which we adhere, perfectly clear. That is one change. The next point is this. As the House is aware, the clause in the Land Act of last year operated only to a very small extent, and we introduce an Amendment which is limited to this object, for the purpose of enabling a very few persons who took advantage of that clause to submit themselves to the conditions of the present Bill, which are not in all respects the same, and to go through the conditions and to take the benefit of the present Bill. I think that is a provision which will be generally approved. The third alteration touches another point of importance. It is to avoid the risk which might be if we were to place new duties in the hands of the Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act at the present moment—a risk which might interfere with the great progress they are making in the important business they have in hand. We propose, therefore, to ask the House to empower the Land Commissioners, subject to the consent of the Treasury, to appoint competent persons for the purpose of making investigations into questions of fact which the Bill contemplates as being necessary to adjudication. These matters, it will be observed, raise questions of principle; but as they do not alter the corpus of the Bill, I propose to take the course I have stated. The next Bill of which I wish to take notice is the Tax Bill. I need not go into the details. The House is aware how it stands. It is an exceedingly simple measure, as our action is extremely straitened by the circumstances of the comparative revenue and charge of the country. In order to enable us to fulfil the engagement entered into at the commencement of the Session, the Bill proposes an augmentation on the tax on carriages. I do not anticipate any discussion, nor give any opinion on this subject; but the House will see, from the manner in which these two matters are associated together, that they will have to take their choice between granting the relief and imposing the charge, or letting the matter stand for another occasion, when the Government may be enabled to deal with the projected changes in the local charges and government. The Government hope to be able to obtain a measure dealing with this question next year. These subjects I have mentioned to the House already on former occasions. I will now refer to two Bills which are likely, I know, from Notice given, to be mentioned to-day. I will anticipate the hon. Members, and, so far as I can, open the way for the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bills, if they may feel it necessary to say anything on the subject of them. The first is the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. I have been requested to state the intentions of the Government in regard to this Bill. I can only say, Sir, that, in our opinion, the Act ought not to be suffered to expire; but there is an important question in relation to it with regard to large towns, which are now excluded from its operation. I cannot say whether it will or will not be convenient to deal with that during the present year. If it is so, I do not know that the Government are under any obligations to charge themselves with the conduct of the Bill; if it is not dealt with as to that important but secondary question—in that case it will be our duty to insert it in the General Continuance Act of the year. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has intimated that he will ask what facilities we can give, or whether we are prepared to give any facilities, for the further consideration of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, which deals with a subject in which he and many others take a great interest. Sir, when we are compelled to make sacrifices, some of them absolute and some of them contingent, of measures which seemed likely to be realized this Session, and measures of our own, and oven measures announced in the Speech from the Throne, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I cannot enter into any engagement with him on this subject at the present time. When the two Irish Bills are disposed of [A laugh]— must say that experience causes me great anxiety that the House should make up its mind with despatch upon these two Irish Bills, for the sake of the best interests of Ireland; and I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be tempted to smile in connection with such a subject—when these two Bills are disposed of our command of the time of the House will have ceased, and private Members will then re-enter into possession of such rights as they usually enjoy at that period of the year. What I am going to say, Sir, I shall say not without some hesitation. I am by no means sure that the hon. Member will take advantage of it, or be inclined to take advantage of it; but I do feel great anxiety, and the Government feel great anxiety, that some progress should be made, if possible, in the business of satisfactorily legislating with regard to agricultural holdings on this side of St. George's Channel. There are several Bills before the House. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire (Sir Thomas Acland), behind me, has a Bill upon this subject. There is, I believe, a third Bill of another hon. Member —the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard). I do not know what view may be taken exactly on the merits of these Bills; but it may be that as to some of these Bills, or all of these Bills—I cannot say which, nor is it the business of the Government, as a Government, to charge itself with any judgment upon the merits of those Bills at the present moment—but it may be that, by favour, the House might be disposed to give to several of these Bills a second reading without the necessity of a debate at that stage. Well, Sir, what we think is this. If it were the pleasure of those in charge of any of those Bills, or of all of them—I do not interfere with any such arrangement, or give any particular opinion about it—but if it were the pleasure of the House to allow the privilege of a second reading, either without discussion or without any ample discussion, and if it were then the pleasure of the Gentlemen in charge of the Bills to move to refer them to Committees chosen pro hac vice, without committing them to the general judgment of the House in the manner indicated in the Rules laid upon the Table with respect to Procedure, the Government will make no objection. They have no intention of forcing that course upon hon. Members. They only wish to say that they will place no impediment to that course in case those in charge of other Bills, or the House generally, think that any good can be gained by the adoption of such a mode of action. We only propose this as a matter for consideration. There is one other point. There are two Bills relating to Scotland which I wish to mention. One is on the subject of Scotch entail. It has not yet reached this House, but it is likely to arrive here; and I believe it represents, so far as I have yet been informed, a very great unanimity of Scottish feeling on the subject. I hope, if that is so, if the Bill should arrive here from the House of Lords, we certainly should be anxious that it should be passed. There is another Bill relating to endowments in Scotland, to which also many Scotch Members attach great value. I cannot say that it will be in our power to appropriate the time of the House for that measure, which is a Government Bill. But if Scotch Members think that any suggestion such as I have made with respect to the Bills of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire (Sir Thomas Acland) can be made available in that matter, that is a question of which we by no means intend to prevent the discussion. But further than that we do not go. It would not be fair to do so. The appointment of large Committees for practically dealing with certain Bills is part of our own plan in relation to Procedure, and we do not desire, by indirect means, to obtain the sanction of the House to that plan. Well, Sir, these are all the Bills which I should mention at the present moment. But there is still an exception. There is the question of the amendment of the Land Act. That comprises several important questions. I do not know that I can enumerate them all from recollection. There is the question of leases, with regard to which certain recommendations have been submitted to the Government by the Land Commissioners. There is the question relating to the labourers, with respect to which also certain recommendations have been submitted; and, thirdly, there are the Purchase Clauses. I can announce no intention, no positive intention, upon the part of the Government; I can only give assurances that we will endeavour to make up our minds, at what we think the proper time, when we approach the close of the discussion of the two Bills now before the House. But, Sir, I have made a serious mistake in passing over an important measure, or rather three measures, which I think I ought to have mentioned to the House. It was in my anxiety to get at the Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire that I overlooked them. The first is the Bill dealing with Corrupt Practices. That has made considerable progress, and it is the intention of the Government to persevere with it. It would involve great loss and waste of the time of the House if we entertained any intention not to send that Bill on to the other House with a view to its passing into law. There are two other Bills on important subjects—one relating to certain boroughs, the total or partial disfranchisement of which is provided for; the other is a Bill relating to the amendment and continuance of the Ballot Act. With respect to these two subjects, I cannot, at the present moment, announce any final decision. Our proceedings must depend upon the progress of Business. I, therefore, distinguish between them and the Corrupt Practices Bill, upon which our mind is certainly made up, as to our duty in persevering with them. With respect to these, it will be our duty to take further time before we arrive at a conclusion. There are two other subjects, one the amendment of the Land Act, of which I have sufficiently disposed for the present purpose; the other is the important question of Procedure. At the present moment I have no positive announcement to make excepting this—that the Government remain more than ever convinced that a satisfactory and thorough settlement of the question of Procedure may, in one sense, be said to transcend every other measure of importance—in this sense, that upon it depends the efficiency as well as the dignity of the great legislative instrument by which the Business of the Empire is mainly carried on—namely, the British House of Commons. With the evils of the present system we shall deem it our duty to deal if any legitimate method be open to us. We shall deem it our duty not to remit the settlement of this question of Procedure to another Session of Parliament in the coming year. We desire that when Parliament meets for its annual Session in February next, or about its usual time, whatever precisely that time may be, it shall not have about its neck the terrible embarrassment brought about by the present state of its Rules and Orders, but shall be enabled to set about with something like its old energy and dignity to the transaction of its Business. At the present moment, I do not go further; but with respect to those matters on which I have not spoken definitely, when we obtain some farther daylight, with respect to the two Bills now before the House, I shall be desirous, and it will be quite right and just, to give the House some further information.

Mr. Speaker, as far as relates to the particular measure to which this Motion points, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly, from his point of view, stated the case very fairly. But I think we ought to take care, before we assent to the proposal he makes, to enter these two caveats. In the first place, it must not be assumed that by giving assent to the proposal that we should lay aside all other Business for the purpose of proceeding with this Bill with regard to arrears that we are giving assent to the scope and merits of the Bill. I am quite aware of the inconvenience that arises from keeping this burning question open any longer than can be avoided; and I am, on that ground, not unprepared to agree to the proposal for the rapid discussion of that Bill, subject to one or two reservations. But I think it ought to be clearly understood that we do not thereby abandon the objection which many of us feel to this Bill, and that we shall not refrain from criticizing, and even, if necessary, opposing it. Besides that general observation, I wish to put a particular question to the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to certain information which I think the House ought to be in possession of before we proceed to the discussion of that Bill. There were two questions put last week—one by myself, the other by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith).

It was an omission on my part. I should have men- tioned that. The first Paper relating to the sufficiency of the Church Surplus Fund, and the finding of the money, is actually in type, and, I hope, will be in the Vote Office this afternoon and circulated to-morrow. The second Paper is also all but ready, and will be in the hands of Members, I hope, to-morrow or the next day.

That is satisfactory so far as it goes. We shall have time, no doubt, to examine that. "With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Bill should go into Committee pro formâ, that undoubtedly will be convenient, and we shall have no objection to make. Then we have had from the Prime Minister, besides, a statement with regard to the general condition of Business and the prospects of the year. I must say, from one or two points of view, I feel disappointed by the statement which has just been made; and while I quite agree that it is of importance that we should not lose any time that can be avoided in proceeding with these Irish Bills, I do think there are other questions which ought to be borne in mind, and about which far too little has been said. With regard to the Budget Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was one of the measures that would be proceeded with. We knew that; but what we want to know is, when it will be proceeded with? Is it intended that the Budget Bill is to stand over until after the two Irish Bills have been disposed of? I cannot help thinking that that would lead to some financial inconvenience. I do not know how the financial arrangements of the country would stand, with leaving a Bill of that sort over to the end of the financial year. Whether it has been considered or not, we ought to be told when the Bill is likely to be taken, or whether we are to wait for the indefinite period pointed out by the description that it will be not only after the Arrears Bill, but after the Prevention of Crime Bill has been concluded. I rather infer from what was said by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Carriage Tax that the proposal is likely to be withdrawn. If so, that would answer the question which otherwise I should put; but if it were persevered with, we must remember that it will be an additional tax, imposed for the purpose of giving certain relief, and we shall require to be informed how that relief is given, and take care that at the end of the Session we have not been putting on a burden without giving any relief. If I am correct in reading between the lines of what the Prime Minister has said, and in inferring that the Carriage Tax is likely to be withdrawn, we shall not be put in that particular position. But it seems to me that in the minds of all who feel strongly on the question of local burdens, some dissatisfaction will arise that the question of the Road Tax should not have been dealt with after all; and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) may, perhaps, feel that he has a word or two to say upon this subject at the proper time. There is another point on which we have been told nothing, and that is, what are we to do about Committee of Supply? Now, undoubtedly, the Business of Ireland is extremely important, but the Business of Supply is, perhaps, the primary duty of the House of Commons; and we have had this year uncommonly few opportunities of proceeding with Supply, which, consequently, is in a very backward state. I have no accurate account of the precise state of the Votes; but my impression is that only one Vote has been taken for the Navy, eight for the Army, and I think the Education Vote has been taken, but not the whole of it, and some two or three Votes of comparatively little importance have been taken in the first class of the Civil Service Estimates. That on the 20th of June is by no means large progress, and there are certain matters in regard to these Estimates which demand our examination. We on this side of the House have been reproached for our extravagance, and we want to have an opportunity of seeing some of that economy practised which was so loudly preached, that we may have an opportunity of profiting by the lesson. We have not been told anything with regard to the other Bills of Her Majesty's Government. There has been a very clean sweep of a considerable number of measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech. With regard to those which have been proceeded with, undoubtedly I express the general feeling on this side of the House when I say that we are glad to hear that the Government do not intend to drop the Corrupt Practices Bill. A great deal of time has been spent on it, it is a very important Bill, and we are glad it is to he proceeded with. I am not sure that it will not be found possible to deal with one or two other Bills which have made progress, either in the hands of the Government, or in those of private Members. The Agricultural Bills, to which reference has been made, are, doubtless, important Bills. I speak especially of the Agricultural Bills which have been mentioned by the Prime Minister, and which I think of great importance. I will also venture to refer to another Bill, which is in the hands of a private Member opposite, and which was to have been one of the Government measures. I mean the Bankruptcy Bill, which has made some progress. I suppose this Bill will be proceeded with. These are the matters upon which we must accept such a statement as the Government can make. Subject to the question which I have asked as to when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to proceed with the Budget Bill, and also to what I have said of the importance of taking Supply, I should have no further observations to make upon the necessary measures which are likely to be before us. But I must say one word on the subject of the Rules of the House. It seems to me that the Government are taking a course with regard to the Procedure Rules which is not likely to facilitate the real Business of the House. It seems to me that a great deal of time has been consumed in the present Session—I will not use the word"wasted"—by a not very well advised attempt to pass those Rules. I cannot but think that much wiser stops might have been taken. A great deal of irritation might have been avoided, and practical improvements made in the Rules of Procedure, if the Government could have persuaded themselves to take the matter up in a different way. I am quite aware that when the Government have got into a contest with a certain part of the House, and feel themselves supported by a majority behind them, it is difficult to stop in a course on which they have entered and to strike out a new one. But so much time has elapsed, circumstances have so much changed in many particulars, that I cannot but think that the Government may yet be disposed to take counsel in this matter, and to consider whether they cannot make these proposals in a form more likely to be acceptable to the general feeling of the House and more efficient to the purposes in view. Whether we deal with it in this Session, that is in the usual Session, or in the manner hinted at by the Junior Lord of the Treasury (Mr. P. W. Duff), and rather ingeniously hinted at by the First Lord of the Treasury when ho said that the Government would not be willing to remit this question to another Session—which was rather significant of its being dealt with in the coming autumn—I can only say we must wait. But I think the last proposal is one which will be extremely unpopular, and I greatly doubt whether it will tend to the satisfactory settlement of the question. Well, there is still a subject which has not been alluded to by the Prime Minister, upon which I should like to say a word or two, and I would introduce it by the observation that a great many complaints have been made, and the country at large has been a good deal surprised in consequence of the large and increasing number of Questions continually put in this House. No doubt the number of questions is large. But it is to be borne in mind that one cause is the fewness of opportunities for discussing questions of importance in consequence of the absorption of the time of the House by the Government taking possession of private Members' days, and also of the length of time expended in discussing Government measures. I only mention that in passing, in order to say that I think the Government, in considering the time which remains at their disposal, have forgotten that it will be important before long that we should have the means of discussing a portion of their foreign policy. There has been no disposition—on the contrary, there has been the direct opposite of a disposition—on the part of this side of the House to embarrass or annoy the Government in the policy they are pursuing. But do not let the Government deceive themselves in consequence of that. Do not let them think there is any indifference on our part. It is a subject which it will be necessary for us to discuss, and before very long we shall have to call upon the Government to state when it will be possible to give information which will enable us to discuss it. It will be quite impossible to make a reckoning as to the close of the Session without taking into account the necessity of that. I do not know that I need say anything more on these points at the present moment. I think, as far as the proposal goes, that the Government might have left it till later. But we have no reason to object to the particular proposal to do for the Bill in its remaining stages what we did at its second reading. We gave it precedence on its second reading, as we gave precedence to the Prevention of Crime Bill. We think the same course may be followed with regard to the Arrears Bill, with the understanding that we do not waive any objections or abandon any intentions we may have of criticizing or even opposing it.

said, if any right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman opposite wished to put questions on any of the subjects he had mentioned, perhaps it would be more convenient that they should be asked now, so that he might deal with them all at once.

said, that the Motion was that the Arrears of Kent Bill should have precedence on every day on which it was set down. The effect of that would be to enable the Government to take other Business on Government nights, and the Arrears of Rent Bill on Wednesdays and on the Morning Sittings of Tuesday and Friday. No doubt, it was the intention of the Government to take the Arrears of Rent Bill from day to day; but, as he said, the Motion would enable them simply to appropriate the days of private Members. He presumed that, with the necessary intervention of Supply, it was intended that the Bill should be continued from day to day.

inquired of the Speaker whether, if he put a question to the Prime Minister, to suit the right hon. Gentleman's convenience, he could afterwards speak on the general policy of the Government?

said, if the hon. Gentleman addressed the House now, he could hot afterwards make another speech.

asked whether the Government would endeavour to proceed with the Prevention of Floods Bill on an early day?

said, the Prime Minister had spoken of the former efficiency of the House of Commons, and he rejoiced that he had done so, for they had been Members of the same Party from 1843 to 1846. As an old Member, he desired to remark that the delay and obstruction which had been witnessed of late would have been quite impossible in former Parliaments. The House had no right to throw upon its Leader the responsibility for its own inefficiency. There seemed a change in the present House from the temper and disposition of former Houses. There was more individuality, and less independence among Members generally. The Rules of the House were the same as they were in 1843 and in 1846. The House had forgotten its corporate duty. Supposing that the House needed new Rules, as had, indeed, been admitted, he (Mr. Newdegate) could only say that the House was already very late in adopting them. The habit of putting questions had grown into an abuse. This practice frittered away the responsibility of Ministers, while it proved the inability of the House to exact their responsibility. As an old Member, he would appeal to the House to vindicate the transaction of its Business from the stigma now resting upon it.

said, he hoped that the Settled Land Bill of Lord Cairns, which had passed the House of Lords, and, after a second reading in the Commons, had been referred to a Select Committee, and which had been regarded most favourably in all quarters, would receive, at all events, the favourable attention of the Government this Session. It affected the interests of a large number of people.

said, he felt grateful to the Prime Minister for his sympathetic tone with regard to a Bill in which he felt interested. The right hon. Gentleman made a suggestion with regard to Bills relating to agriculture, without binding himself to a suggestion which, he thought, it was his duty to notice. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that those Bills should be referred to something like a Grand Committee. There were three of them, and one that stood in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devonshire (Sir Thomas Acland) contained so much which he individally approved that he did not think there would be any objection to referring it in connection with one which stood in his own name to a Select Committee; but the Bill of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) con- tained principles to which he was so entirely opposed, that he must guard himself at once against being supposed to be willing to have anything to do with it. As to the kind of Committee alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, he felt precluded from expressing any opinion, or, at all events, a favourable one; he could not predict whether its proceedings would be likely to facilitate the progress of a measure. For this Session, at any rate, he should like to see the two Bills referred to a Select Committee. As to the Rules of Procedure, there was no monopoly on either side of a desire to see some effective change made in them. He would suggest the substitution of what he would describe as an individual clÔture for the general and sweeping clÔture proposed by the Prime Minister's Resolution—a solution of the difficulty which he believed would find more favour than the right hon. Gentleman imagined. As to the present Motion, it was hardly fair to ask them to assent to it before they had seen the Amendments proposed to be made in the Arrears Bill; it was possible they might influence Members in considering the Motion, particularly if, like himself, their views were hostile to the measure. But why was the Motion made at the present time? It seemed premature until they approached somewhat nearer the completion of the Committee on the Crime Bill, especially as it was understood there was no intention of taking any other Business until the Bill was through Committee. The Motion might very well have been postponed at least a few days longer. He hoped it would not be agreed to, unless they had a distinct assurance that no further attempt would be made to carry the Procedure Resolutions in their present shape during the present Session.

asked the Prime Minister whether he would arrange that the Committee on the Arrears Bill should take precedence of the Report on the Prevention of Crime Bill? He also wished to direct his particular attention to the extreme importance of endeavouring to do something this Session for the agricultural labourers of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman might have noticed that he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had had a Motion on the Paper dealing with this subject, and that, as it had occupied the second place on the Orders of the Day for this evening, he ought to have fairly counted upon the subject being discussed to-night had it not been cut off by the urgency given to the Crime Bill. He should do his best during the remainder of the Session to obtain a chance of bringing the subject before the House; but he sought to impress upon the Prime Minister the great necessity of the Government taking the matter up, so that it might be dealt with in an effective way this Session. It ought to be clearly under-stood whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to take up the Arrears Bill on any night on which the Government were unable to proceed further with the Crime Bill. He also thought that fair opportunity should be given to the Opposition to discuss the increasing financial expenditure of the Government.

said, he hoped the Government would not accede to the request of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to send two Bills only to a Select Committee, and leave out that of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), which he believed the farmers of England would very much prefer to the other measures. Let that Bill be examined and considered along with the others, and it would be found to compare most favourably in the best interests of agriculture. The very fact of the hon. Member condemning it proved that there was some good in it. He hoped the Prime Minister would do justice to the farmers, and if Bills were to be committed to a Grand Committee, then the three should be dealt with on equal terms.

said, he desired to ask the Prime Minister whether he had the slightest intention of putting down the Arrears Bill and taking it on any night before the disposal of the Crime Bill? On one previous occasion the Arrears Bill was placed at the head of the Orders before Supply on a Friday, obviously, ho presumed, with the intention of that Bill being taken, if possible, before Supply. He feared the reason why the right hon. Gentleman was making this Motion just now was that he might have an opportunity of proceeding with the Arrears Bill, perhaps at a very late hour of the evening, after he had been unable to proceed any further with the Crime Bill that night. Such a course would be extremely inconvenient. With regard to the Budget Bill, the right hon. Gentleman must not suppose that by giving up the increase of taxation, as he proposed to do, he would dispose of a question in which many hon. Members felt a deep interest. They thought it was high time that the question of the management of finance by Her Majesty's Government should be fully discussed. No question influenced more the decision of the constituencies at the last General Election than the attack made by those who were at present in power upon the financial arrangements of those who were now in Opposition. They ought to understand that a full opportunity would be given to discuss, not only the actual proposals made by the Government in this year's Budget, but also the whole scale of expenditure in this year's Budget, with a view of ascertaining how it was that the expenditure of the Government was on a much larger scale than the expenditure which they so much denounced when they were in Opposition.

said, the Prevention of Floods Bill raised a matter which the present condition of the country made one of considerable urgency and importance; and he hoped the Prime Minister would not entirely exclude the further consideration of that Bill from the programme of Her Majesty's Government.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), gave expression to a very natural curiosity, which must be felt in many parts of the House, as to why the Government made this particular proposal at this particular time. It was quite obvious that there was no necessity for it. The Motion, if carried, could not possibly be operative at all for a week, or even 10 days. Why, then, should the Government have come down on this particular afternoon to ask the House to assent to this apparently useless proposal? He thought the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had indicated what possibly might be the reason of this; and he should be very glad if he could feel quite certain that they were not on the trace of some fresh compact between Her Majesty's Government and those Members representing Irish constituencies, who had hitherto so persistently and with such apparent zeal opposed the Prevention of Crime Bill. Would the Government, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, assure the House that they were not going to act on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Longford, and to take the Committee on the Arrears Bill before the Report on the Prevention of Crime Bill, so that while they were trying to coerce the Irish Members to pass the Prevention of Crime Bill, by holding the Arrears Bill before them, they might, perhaps, try to coerce other hon. Members to pass the Arrears Bill, in order that the Crime Prevention Bill might afterwards follow? Whatever might be the intentions of the Government, there was no doubt that the introduction of the Arrears Bill operated in Ireland as a "no rent" manifesto, which was far more effectual for its purpose than the previous "no rent" manifesto that was issued. Moreover, it was more dangerous to the Irish people, because, while the authors of the earlier "no rent" manifesto were confined in prison, the authors of the second "no rent" manifesto were Her Majesty's Government sitting on the Treasury Bench. It might be that the hopes of hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies had been somewhat blunted, and that the Motion made to-day was a kind of refresher to show them that the Government were in earnest, and meant to carry out what some people believed to be the bargain made in the great "Kilmainham Treaty." He would be no party to a proceeding of this kind, and he hoped there were some Members on that side of the House who would support him in dividing the House against the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman had made. It was his intention to oppose the Arrears Bill most resolutely at every step, because he believed it was a measure which would be unjust to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, and mischievous and pauperizing to the Irish people. He promised the right hon. Gentleman that when the Bill was brought forward for discussion he would give it a most relentless opposition. If hon. Members were prepared to oppose a Bill of this kind, they had a right to refuse to give the Government facilities for passing it. By voting for the Resolution they would be making themselves a party to the refresher which was thrown out in order to catch the votes of Members from Ireland. In his opinion, those who were opposed to the Arrears Bill ought to vote against the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, that, as the Government intended to commit the Arrears Bill pro formâ, he wished to direct attention to a matter which, he thought, was germane to that measure. The Land Act of last Session, according to the construction placed on it, permitted the judicial rent to date from the day of the application of the tenant in all cases where the tenant made his application on the occasion of the first sitting of the Court. About 40,000 or 60,000 made application at that time, and, consequently, they were placed in a very advantageous position as compared with those who made application afterwards. He would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider whether they could not see their way to make all arrears of rent which did not now come within the provisions of this Bill to be computed on the basis of the decision of the Court, where the tenant had made an application to have a fair rent fixed— that was to say, if a tenant was paying £15a-year rent, and his judicial rent was fixed at £10, he should be entitled to claim a rebate of £5. In that way the tenants who had not yet made an application to the Court would be encouraged to enter the Land Court, and their landlords would be encouraged to make those settlements out of Court which were so desirable, if the Act were to succeed in its object. He was afraid he had not conveyed his meaning very clearly, but perhaps the Prime Minister would understand it.

I will first of all notice the last suggestion which has been made to me. The suggestion is that, on the committal pro formâ of the Arrears Bill, the Government should introduce a provision which would have the effect of applying the reduction of rent which may be made by the Court to the arrears of rent. I am bound to say, without at present entering into the merits of the proposal, that, as far as I have ever viewed the question of committal pro formâ, my opinion, and, I think, the practice of the House is, that the changes introduced are introduced for the mechanical convenience—if I may use the phrase—of all parties, and that they are generally understood to be changes in furtherance of the principles of a Bill, but not changes introducing new principles of importance. Therefore, such a subject could not be entertained in connection with a committal pro formâ. Even if the proposal of the hon. Member was fit to be introduced—and I am bound to say I do not think it is—I cannot, therefore, see my way to a discussion of it in the House. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), I quite agree with him that the Arrears Bill is a measure of such importance that it ought to be taken at the commencement of the evening, as is the usual practice. With respect to the precedence between the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Arrears Bill, I have to remind the House of what I ventured to say on more than one occasion— namely, that the Crime Bill takes precedence of the Arrears Bill, but that the convenience, and even the necessity of the case, requires that there shall be intervals at certain stages in the prosecution of the Crime Bill, and these intervals I should wish to turn to account for the purpose of forwarding the Arrears Bill. With regard to the question why this proposal is made to-day, it should be recollected that it was made to-day after a Notice of several days. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) professes to know exactly how long the Committee on the Crime Prevention Bill will last; but I have not so much foresight as the hon. and learned Gentleman, and it is our duty to be prepared for any acceleration of the proceedings that might take place. We may have clauses less thorny and difficult than those with which we have been dealing, which may enable the House to dispose of the Bill sooner than at present appears probable. With regard to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), I do not intend to interfere in any way, on the part of the Government, as to the Bills he has mentioned; but I wish to leave the matter entirely to the free consideration of those concerned. With regard to the Settled Land Bill, of course the Government can say nothing positive, except that they would endeavour to give the same fair play and fair consideration, when the question arises, to that Bill which they have given upon former occasions. With regard to the question by the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith), the right ton. Gentleman is perfectly right in his views. It is necessary for us to reserve the power of proceeding with other Business, because of the necessity which may arise for Supply, or in case it should be found necessary to proceed with the Tax Bill; but unquestionably we have no intention of interpolating any Government Business, unless it may be a matter of necessity, to the prejudice of the Prevention of Crime Bill in the first instance, and the Arrears Bill in the second. With regard to the Bill for the Prevention of Floods, we shall be very glad if opportunities can be found for proceeding with it; but it is not possible at present to make any positive announcement respecting it. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) asked when we should proceed with the Budget? That is not an unnatural question. "We have not had, as yet, any intimation from the Department of positive inconvenience arising from the delay. I must say the delay is open to objection. It is the regular practice that the Budget Bill should come forward a short time after the Budget, and it is a practice which we have only been parties to interrupting because of the extreme necessity of other Business. As it is, the Budget Bill will come forward, should it be practically necessary, whenever we find the necessity arise; and if the necessity does not arise, it will come forward when we have proceeded with the Crime Bill and the Arrears Bill to such a point as to make it not inconvenient to the House to take it; and the same with respect to Supply. No very long time will elapse before it will be necessary to make an application on the subject of Supply.

A Vote on Account?

The first necessity will not be a Vote on Account, but for one of the great Services, and we could not ask the House to go at large into the fields of Supply and Miscellaneous Services without causing a very great interruption and delay in these Irish measures; and that, I think, would be even a greater evil than the postponement of Supply, which I quite admit to be a serious evil. With reference to the subject of Procedure, various suggestions and recommendations have been made. But I think it is better that I should reserve myself in regard to the subject until further progress has been made towards the termination of discussion upon the two Irish Bills. But in one matter I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote), that the time we have already spent on the subject of Procedure ought not to be thrown away, unless it be an absolute necessity; and I think I have already said that nothing but absolute necessity will prevent us going forward during the present year—and I hope during the present Session—with the subject of Procedure. Beyond that I cannot enter into it in detail at the present moment, but must wait until circumstances are more matured.

said, there was one point that had scarcely been cleared up, and that was, what were the relative positions to be occupied hereafter by the two Bills—the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Arrears Bill? The Prime Minister had spoken of availing himself of the interstices that might occur in the Prevention of Crime Bill, in order to deal with the question of arrears. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his intention to keep back the Prevention of Crime Bill for any purpose one moment longer than was absolutely required for taking its various stages in regular form? For instance, when that Bill had passed through Committee, would a discussion take place upon the Arrears Bill only until the reprint of the Prevention of Crime Bill had been placed in the hands of hon. Members?

The progress of the Prevention of Crime Bill will only be delayed when it is for the convenience of the House.

said, that the announcement made last night by the Chief Secretary for Ireland had caused the passing of the Prevention of Crime Bill to be a matter of more importance than the convenience of the House of Commons, for he had stated that if the Bill was discussed at great length, and thereby delayed, it was impossible to say what might not happen before it became law. According to the statements of those representing the Irish Department of the Government, the importance of passing the Prevention of Crime Bill far transcended the convenience of the House of Commons. That being the case, did the right hon. Gentleman in- tend to delay that Bill by a single moment?

No, no; not one single moment.

said, he thought it only right to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman that if he was under the impression that the Arrears Bill was one involving mere detail he was entirely mistaken. He (Mr. J. Lowther) thought he spoke the sentiments of the large majority of the Conservative Party, when he said he believed that the Arrears Bill was offering a direct premium on fraud and an official recognition of dishonesty. The right hon. Gentleman, on a previous occasion, had taken him to task for using language outside the House which he was not prepared to use in it; but, without reproducing his or any other speeches, he would merely say that it was within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that the Arrears Bill had been described as part and parcel of a compact, treaty, or arrangement, and as partaking of the character of infamy. He believed it had been so described in the House of Commons—not by him, but with the general approval of the Conservative Members. With feelings so strong as many hon. Members entertained with regard to that Bill, it was not consistent with their duty not to make the most emphatic protests against the principles upon which it was based. He confessed he had heard the speech made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland with great regret. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of evictions and outrages in the same breath. He had spoken of simultaneous Returns of the evictions and outrages that had taken place, and he had, moreover, spoken of the cruelty of evictions. With the exception of two expressions of opinion which were historical, he had never heard any expression of opinion more calculated to cause serious evils in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had coupled the legitimate exercise of legal rights—rights which were legal at the present moment—in the same breath with breaches of the law, and even with terrible murders. The two expressions of opinion antecedent to that of the right hon. Gentleman were the well-known declaration of Lord Clarendon, in which eviction and felony were coupled in the same sentence, and the other expression of opinion was that which the Prime Minister, to some extent, apparently modified the other night.

Never.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not heard what he had to state.

The right hon. Gentleman said I apparently modified an expression of opinion in regard to evictions, and I said "Never."

What he (Mr. J. Lowther) said was that the right hon. Gentleman modified an expression of opinion with which he had been credited with regard to the opinion, as he termed it, that the people of Ireland might form in regard to evictions.

I say I never modified it.

begged to submit to the correction. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, given a correction of that which ho characterized as an erroneous impression that prevailed in the public mind respecting a well-known passage in one of his celebrated speeches. Passing that by, he would just emphasize this point—that a Representative of the Government having coupled evictions and outrages in the same breath, it became a matter for the House to consider how far they were entitled to allow measures dealing with those two subjects to be simultaneously dealt with without entering their most emphatic protest. The Chief Secretary had also drawn a distinction between two different classes of evictions—namely, those of tenants who could and would not pay, and those who were actually unable to pay. Was he to understand the right hon. Gentleman to hold that there was an act of cruelty and hardship on the part of the landlord involved in parting with a tenant who was hopelessly insolvent? He rather gathered, from an expression which fell from the Chief Secretary the other day, that the right hon. Gentleman considered it an act of cruelty for a landlord to evict from his estate a tenant who was hopelessly insolvent, and who had no prospect of ever being able to pay— that it was a hardship to evict a tenant who was absolutely incapable of carrying on his occupation as a farmer. Now, against any such idea he must utter his emphatic protest. In his judgment, if a tenant was not merely suffering from temporary adversity, but from hopeless insolvency, and was unable to pay his creditors in general, and his landlord in particular—if his landlord saw that there was no reasonable prospect of the tenant regaining his solvency, and pursuing agriculture with advantage to himself and to the community, then the landlord was thoroughly justified, and, in fact, it was his bounden duty, to part with that tenant.

rose to Order, and asked the Speaker whether the right hon. Gentleman was justified, on the Motion then before the House, in discussing the details of the Arrears Bill?

The Question immediately before the House is simply a proposal for giving precedence in certain circumstances to a particular Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman is bound to confine himself to that Question.

said, he meant to do that, and the Speaker would no doubt have called him to Order had he failed to do so. He had consistently throughout his observations avoided entering in any shape or form into the details of the Arrears Bill. He had merely pointed out to the House matters for consideration at the present stage of their discussion. He hoped that the Government would be prepared to give them an assurance that not a moment would unnecessarily be lost in the prosecution of the Prevention of Crime Bill—that was to say, that if the discussion on the Arrears Bill, which must of necessity be one of some duration, should not be brought to a termination before the Prevention of Crime Bill was ready for another stage, the Government would proceed with all despatch with that important measure, which stood first for their consideration. In conclusion, he would only say that as the Arrears Bill involved the proposal that the honest and industrious tenant farmers of England, and the struggling taxpayers of the United Kingdom at large, who had honourably endeavoured to meet their legal obligations during a period of great hardship, should pay the rent of the disloyal and seditious persons who had, during exceptionally favourable seasons, deliberately withheld their rent, which they were able to pay if they were solvent men, the Government must expect a full and ample discussion of so novel and so serious a proposal.

said, he was in rather an awkward position, for the right hon. Gentleman had made one or two remarks about himself which he was afraid of answering, or referring to, without being out of Order. He hoped, however, he might be allowed to protest against the deductions of the right hon. Gentleman from a simple sentence of his the other day. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had coupled two very different and incongruous things— the exercise of the landlord's legal rights with breaches of law and actual murder, and he called that an expression of opinion on his part. Whence did it all come? Because he had said that in addition to a daily return of outrages the Government proposed to have a daily return of evictions. He had simply intended to justify the labour and expense of a daily return by a precedent; and no Member who heard him could have thought that he in any way coupled the two ideas. Then the right hon. Member asked whether he inferred any cruelty from the landlord parting with the tenant who was hopelessly insolvent? [Mr. J. LOWTHER: Hardship.] Well, he would call it hardship — whether he inferred hardship on the part of the landlord who turned out a tenant who was hopelessly insolvent. No; he inferred no such thing. What he did say was that if, as in the cases which their officers reported, the rent of the holding was far too high; if the tenant had gone through several very bad seasons, and from no fault of his own could not pay the rent; then, at the time when there had passed through both Houses of Parliament a Land Act which was the Constitutional and received method of pacifying Ireland by fixing a fair rent, and when a Bill was on the Table for the purpose of enabling a tenant to pay his arrears, the landlord who put the tenant out of the power of getting the advantage of these two measures sadly hampered the Executive in Ireland, and did something in spirit, if not illegally, to defeat the intentions of the Legislature.

said, it was the duty of the Tory Party to vote against the Motion, because they did not really know what the Arrears Bill was at the present time. To put himself in Order, and to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of answering one or two questions he was about to put, he should, if necessary, conclude with a Motion. He wished to learn from the Prime Minister whether proper opportunities would be given for bringing forward important questions connected with the affairs of Egypt and of India. If the programme of the Government were carried out, he feared that they could not have a discussion on the Indian Budget much be-fore the beginning of September. He asked whether the Prime Minister intended to pass the Rules of Procedure or the Corrupt Practices Bill first? The Corrupt Practices Bill could not be duly considered by the House if it were put off till the end of August, when there would probably be few Members present. Again, were they to rattle through the Estimates this year in the same way as they did last year? The Arrears Bill was an iniquitous measure, and one to which hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House should endeavour to offer a strenuous and persistent opposition. He did not believe that the country at heart cared two straws about the clôture Resolutions. It was easy for the right hon. Gentlemen to get some Liberal meeting now and then to pass a resolution urging the House to deal with them; but the inconvenience of an Autumn Session would far outweigh any facilities which the passing of the Resolutions would afford. Complaints had been made by the Government of the way in which the practice of questioning Ministers had increased. That increase, however, was solely due to the reticence of the Government, particularly of the Prime Minister and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and if the Government would cease to give evasive replies they would find the number of Questions at once diminish. He wished to know whether it would be possible to take a discussion of the affairs of Egypt, if necessary, between the passing of the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Arrears Bill, a discussion from which they ought not to be precluded? He should be glad also to hear from the Government when the Indian Budget was to be looked for, and whether another Vote was to be taken on account, making the almost unprecedented number of three Votes on Account that Session?

said, he thought the House had received another illustra- tion of the sort of leadership exercised by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) over the Conservative Party. He did not think ho would be far wrong in stating that, for this occasion at least, the right hon. Baronet had been formally deposed on the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), seconded, with his usual rollicking political incompetence, by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Lowther). He was afraid that the spirit which had been displayed by the light horse of the Conservative Party on this occasion was only too sure an indication of the treatment which the Arrears Bill would receive in "another place," when it would come more particularly under the purview of a Conservative statesman who, in many respects, was not altogether dissimilar from the political temperament of the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had protested before, and of course he would protest again, against the deplorable action of the Government in introducing a Coercion Bill, destined, as he believed it to be, to strangle most of the benefits which might otherwise arise from their remedial legislation; but at present he merely wished to observe that in the observations which had fallen from the lips of the Premier they had not heard the slightest indication of any intention of discussing the Colonial and Indian policy of the Government. He ventured to say that the policy which had handed over to John Dunn a nation on whom they had unjustly made war, which had permitted the deplorable scandals in the Pacific, whereby the British flag was made a veritable black flag of piracy, and which refused to listen to the wrongs of 250,000,000 tortured human beings in India, was worthy the attention of Parliament. He could assure the House that the grievances of the Indian people were becoming matters of comment in the Native Press of India, and even in the Press of Egypt; and the Government were bound to give facilities for discussing them as a part of the Business of this Imperial Parliament.

I must invite the hon. Member to keep to the Question before the House.

said, he had been speaking to that portion of the Business of the House which concerned the people of India. He was not aware that he was more out of Order than the Prime Minister, who introduced several subjects connected with their Business, but omitted some of the most important. Would the Government give any opportunity for condemning the default in bringing to justice the murderers of Bengal prisoners, and the flogging of starving prisoners?

said, he did not intend to travel so far a-field as the hon. Member who had just sat down; but he wished to express his entire concurrence with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). No reason existed why special facilities should be given to the Government for passing the Arrears Bill through the House. They on that side of the House were not only opposed to the principle of the Bill, but they regarded it as a measure which was tainted in its origin; and they knew it to be the first-fruit of that transaction which in that House they must not call a treaty, but which was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford as a negotiation. He (Mr. Raikes) rose more particularly for the purpose of asking the House whether it was not possible to obtain from the Government some more satisfactory and definite forecast as to what was in the mind of Her Majesty's Ministers with regard to the other Business of the Session? They had heard something that day about the cloture Resolutions. He rather objected to that form of nomenclature, because there was only one Resolution which was directly aimed at the cloture. The other Resolutions affected the Business of the House; and he was sure that many hon. Members on both sides would have been in favour of many of them were it not that they were tied by the neck to one objectionable Resolution which excited the hostility of the House. At a proper time hon. Members on that side would have been perfectly willing to have considered and passed a great many of them, and the Government might now have been using them to facilitate the discussion of the Prevention of Crime Bill then before them. He wished the Government would enter into some definite engagement as to when these proposals would be brought on. Something dark had been thrown out by the youngest Member of Her Majesty's Government, and something still darker had been suggested by the Prime Minister with regard to an Autumn Session. He did not himself object to an Autumn Sitting; certainly, it was preferable to forcing the Resolutions upon a thin House in the third or fourth week in August. He hoped that some assurance would be given by the Government that, if they contemplated the resumption of the consideration of the Procedure Rules this Session, they intended to avoid the public scandal of thrusting those Rules down the throat of the House at a period of the Session when it would be impossible for them to be more than hastily and imperfectly considered. He wished to say a word with regard to the state of Supply. In general there was circulated among the Members of that House a little, but a very useful paper, which showed the state of Supply; but this year, perhaps for economical reasons, the Government had not circulated what would be most likely nearly a blank sheet. He had understood that when the Government asked for the last Vote on Account they had intimated that they would not ask for another without urgent necessity. The fact was that, both as regarded home affairs and our foreign policy, our Government had reached the ne plus ultra of absurdity. It appeared to him that Ministers lived in a fool's paradise, and were engaged in balancing the two halves of their Irish policy, considering it to be of the greatest importance which of those two halves was to be proceeded with first, while every other consideration of either home or foreign affairs was put aside. Instead of either English or Scotch legislation being proceeded with, the House met every evening to witness a fight—which, after all, might be merely a sham one— between the Government and their Irish allies. He was glad that the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because the House would be saved from a very tedious discussion on the subject. It had been suggested that the Agricultural Holdings Bills, the Scotch Entail Bill, and the Scotch Endowment Bill should be referred to Grand Committees. It would, however, be necessary to discuss carefully the constitution of any Grand Committee, not only on general grounds, but also because otherwise a claim would be put forward that all Irish. Business should be referred to a Grand Committee which would consist almost entirely of Irish Members, which, would be a most dangerous proceeding-. With regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill, there was a general desire on both sides of the House to see that measure passed into law during the present Session. The only objection that he had to take to the action of the Government with regard to that Bill was that they were putting the cart before the horse. He hoped that it was not too late for them to proceed with their Bill for disfranchising the corrupt boroughs before they dealt with corrupt practices. Before they framed fresh laws dealing with corrupt practices, they ought to know what punishment was to be meted out to those who had violated the present law. It was certainly a very cruel thing that the persons and the boroughs implicated should be hung up Session after Session without their knowing whether the Government was in earnest in dealing with them, or whether the House was not to be made a laughing-stock, as far as its professions of purity were concerned. If the Government were determined to have an Autumn Session, let them toll the House so straightforwardly; but do not let these Rules of Procedure be considered at a late period of the present Session.

said, he was bound to condemn the tone of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) with reference to the Arrears Bill. Before the release of the Members imprisoned in Kilmainham a requisition, numerously signed by Members on both sides of the House, was presented to the Prime Minister, urging him to deal with the question of arrears; and, under those circumstances, to reiterate, in the tone adopted by the two Members referred to, a charge, which had over and over again been denied, that the action of the Prime Minister was calculated to foster discontent in the minds of the poor farmers of Ireland who awaited the Arrears Bill, and to remove from them the confidence they had in the Government, was unwise. Instead of the Arrears Bill operating as a "no rent" manifesto, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham stated, it was an "all rent" manifesto, because, immediately that it was introduced, many landlords thought proper to proceed against their tenants for the purpose of recovering all the arrears due to them before the Bill became law. He had in his possession bundles of writs which had been served on poor tenants, and when ho looked at the particulars of them he thought it was outrageous that they should be served at all. He had one in which a tenant owed three years' rent. Last year he sold his last cow and thereby paid a year's rent, but was unable to pay more; and yet it was sought to pass judgment on this man, and deprive him of the benefit of the Arrears Bill. He warned the Government that if the Crime Bill was allowed to be put into operation in Ireland unaccompanied by the Arrears Bill, or, at all events, by a prospect of its speedy passing, much, crime would be the result. He urged the Prime Minister to deal, if possible, this year with the pressing questions of the date from which judicial rents were to take effect. At present, hundreds and thousands of tenants were unable to get their claims heard. In all their cases, if the Government did not step in, the judicial rent would only date from the gale day succeeding the decision of the Court.

said, he thought it would be admitted that the Arrears Bill was one of the first importance, and that, as such a short debate took place on the second reading, some time ought to be given for its discussion prior to going into Committee. It seemed to him that it was a Bill which proposed to tax the people of this country to pay rents which dishonest tenants in Ireland had failed to pay. An opportunity ought to be given to those who were opposed to it to discuss its principle. He hoped, as regarded the Indian Budget, that it would be brought forward earlier than it was last year. As regarded the Corrupt Practices and the Disfranchisement Bills, they would like some more information. Ho thought it very desirable that the latter Bill should be pushed forward. It was a Bill more urgently required for the punishment of offenders, and involving much less detail, than the former. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to reply, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Motion.

I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it is absolutely beyond my power to give any undertaking with regard to the Disfranchisement Bill. With regard to the question of the Indian Budget, it is a matter on which no opinion can be pronounced in the present state of things. When the necessity has arisen for the consideration of the question it must be regarded in connection with the convenience of the great body of the House; but it will be impossible to give beforehand any engagement as to the position in which it should stand, and its precedence over every other Bill. As regarded an Autumn Session, that was a matter on which they could not then pronounce any opinion. But then, Sir, I have been asked whether it was intended that the Corrupt Practices Bill should take precedence of the Resolutions on Procedure, or whether the Resolutions on Procedure should take precedence of the Corrupt Practices Bill. Sir, I thought it would be quite distinctly understood that the Corrupt Practices Bill was a measure which we were resolved, so far as it depends upon us, to push forward; while with regard to the Resolutions on Procedure, I have said that the mode of dealing with them must stand for further and future consideration, stating at the same time, in the most positive terms at our command, that they would come within the compass of the present year, so as not to go into the next Session. In our opinion, that subject should be thoroughly and effectually dealt with. With regard to the Vote on Account, I cannot understand the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. No sort of engagement was given that no further Vote should be asked for. Why, Sir, no person in his senses could give such an engagement, and no such engagement could be given. It is quite evident that the question of the Votes must depend on the demands of the various descriptions of Business at the time before the House of Commons; and what I want to point out is, that every unnecessary debate, and every unnecessary speech, however it may profess to aim at the removal of obstruction, and the bringing forward of this question, is in point of fact a prac- tical contribution to enhancing the difficulties of the position in which we stand, and though each of these speeches may be small in themselves, it is the multiplication of them out of which the whole gigantic difficulty arises.

said, he would not be doing justice to his own convictions if he did not repeat an observation which, on all occasions similar to this, he had annually made since he had the honour of a seat in that House. The Prime Minister was in the same position to-day that every Leader of the House had been in during his observation for the past eight years. He had had to come down at a certain period of the Session, and to acknowledge, in tones of patriotic humiliation, that Parliament was utterly inefficient for the discharge of its great duties, and from all quarters of the House that statement had received support. But what he (Mr. O'Connor Power) marvelled at was the care with which men of all shades of English opinion in that House evaded the one great question which lay at the root of Parliamentary difficulties. The expectation held out to them in relation to certain methods of forwarding the legislation of the country had always been doomed to disappointment. The Government felt that the one thing necessary for restoring the efficiency of Parliament was to pass in their entirety the Rules of Procedure which some months ago were laid on the Table of the House. He ventured to say, and he did not think his prediction would be falsified, that even if these Rules were adopted in their entirety, the Prime Minister would come towards the close of the Session of 1883, and go through the same operation that every Leader of the House of Commons had to go through since the passing of the Reform Bill—namely, to announce the withdrawal of important legislative measures, because Parliament was powerless to deal with them in a manner satisfactory to the country. It was certainly an unpleasant prospect that after the long days they had sat considering public questions, the alternative should be held out to them of sitting into the month of September to discuss Rules of Procedure of doubtful expediency, or of adjourning in the middle of August, and coming back in the middle of October to pass Rules to restore the efficiency of Par- liament, or, in other words, to subject themselves to the operation of that coercion which so many of them had been willing to impose on the people of Ireland, in the vain hope of making themselves more efficient for the transaction of Public Business. They would simply put the House into a strait jacket, and then expect its movements to be more rapid, and the result of its proceedings to be more satisfactory. For the eighth year ho rose in his place as an Irish Member to say that their difficulties in that House, that the obstruction of important legislative Business which the people of England were calling for, that their difficulties in Ireland, which were now striking at the very foundation of society in the country and threatening the stability of public order, were all referable to the one great cause, and that was that the English House of Commons persisted in managing the domestic affairs of the Irish people, although the experience of 82 years protested with all the voice of impartial history that such a practice was likely to be attended with no appreciable success as far as Ireland was concerned, while it must inflict upon the people of England a continuance of the many difficulties which they had hitherto experienced in carrying out this impossible task. He had intended to put one or two Questions to the Prime Minister with reference to the Land Act; but, as the process of interrogation had been carried so far already, he could only expect fragmentary answers, with which he should not feel satisfied. Ho intended, however, to interrogate the right hon. Gentleman, on an early day, with reference to the definition of a town park under the Land Act.

said, that many of the numerous speeches of which the Prime Minister complained as delaying progress were due to the extraordinary course which had been followed by the Government. Not a single measure mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session had been pursued with anything like a determination to carry it out to a successful issue. The proposal to take precedence for the Arrears Bill, and thus shut out all the rights of private Members, was one as to which they ought to have more full explanation from the Government. As the course proposed was quite unprecedented, ho wished to ask one or two questions — First, whether the Government really meant to carry out their threat and not leave the clôture to another year; secondly, whether a Bill might not be discussed in Committee after having been considered by a Grand Committee—that was the view which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister took of the matter, he believed—and, thirdly, whether the Government would really restore the rights of private Members when these two Bills were passed?

said, he regretted that he was not in his place when the Prime Minister threw out a suggestion that the Agricultural Holdings Bills should be referred to a Committee, and he was surprised to learn that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) did not fall in with the suggestion. It was impossible that any private Member could deal with this great question satisfactorily without a Select Committee. Looking to the diversity of opinion which prevailed both out-of-doors and in that House upon the question, ho thought such a Committee would do great good in guiding public opinion on the matter, and for himself he cordially accepted the suggestion.

said, the hon. Member misunderstood him; all that he had said was that he wished to guard himself against being supposed to have anything to do with the Bill of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire. He hoped his observations would not be misunderstood as to the Prime Minister's suggestion. All ho intended to convey was that, in his opinion, a Committee of the kind suggested by the Prime Minister—namely, a Grand Committee—would probably not substantially facilitate the progress of the measures.

said, that, at the present time, Public Business was in a most unsatisfactory condition. In his opinion, the Indian Budget would be taken this Session later than ever. With regard to the Arrears Bill, he was surprised at the Prime Minister's proposal; it was a weak and unworthy surrender to Obstruction. He also protested against the Prime Minister bringing forward the clôture Resolution at any period of the Session. He thought that "Philip had become sober," and that a good many of the right hon. Gentleman's friends had also become sobered. Most noxious creatures had their stings in their tails; but these Resolutions had their sting in their head. He had a personal interest in the matter, for he had been included by the Secretary of State for India among the four upon the proscribed list.

said, he did not wish his previous observations to be misunderstood. The reason why he had not accepted the Prime Minister's suggestion was that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee, which he did not think would be of any real benefit. Though anxious to give consideration to the proposal of the Government as regarded the Arrears Bill, he felt bound, until he knew how far the Amendment would affect it, to oppose the measure. If his hon. Friend pressed his Motion to a division he would support it.

said, he thought the Government had been guilty of a great waste of time.

asked whether the hon. Member was at liberty to address the House, having seconded the Motion for Adjournment?

Several hon. Members rose together to second the Motion, and I did not accept the hon. Member for Birkenhead as seconding the Motion.

said, the difficulty about late hours of the House, which were so injurious to the health of hon. Members, might be obviated if the House would adopt some other mode of taking the Votes.

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question before the House.

I understand the Question is the adjournment of the debate.

The Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate on the Motion for the giving of precedence to the Arrears Bill.

said, he should, then, oppose the Motion.

said, the Irish Members were anxious to expedite the proceedings in reference to the Bills before the House as much as possible; and, although they were more anxious for the passage of the Arrears Bill, they certainly were not willing to sell their rights and privileges for £500,000, as they would be doing if they assented to hasten the passage of the Prevention of Crime Bill. Short of doing this, they would be prepared to do their utmost to facilitate the Bill.

said, the Amendment he had to propose was not upon the Paper, and he would therefore read it to the Committee. He proposed to insert the words in line 11 making it necessary to fill up the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant to search for arms and illegal documents with the names of the suspected persons, the names of the occupiers of the houses, and the hour at which the search was to be made. He hoped the Government would consent to accept the Amendment, because he believed it was strictly in accordance with the principle the Committee had laid down in regard to the Bill. He understood the Bill was to be carried out, as far as possible, in accordance with Constitutional principles. The Act of last year was founded on unconstitutional principles—namely, that an English subject might be arrested on the mere suspicion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and detained without being brought up for trial. This Bill, however, was to be carried out as much as possible in accordance with Constitutional principles; and although trial by jury was taken away by the Bill, it was, to a certain extent, restored by providing another tribunal. It was quite true that an accused person was not to be tried by 12 jurors; but, at the same time, he was to be tried by six Judges, who were practically equivalent to an ordinary jury. In this particular case the accused was to be tried by two stipendiary magistrates, one of whom was to be a lawyer. That was a course which was not unknown to the English law, and, to a certain extent, it was carrying out the law of England. At the same time, if they proposed to carry out the law of England in this way, they ought also to carry it out in accordance with the principles on which that law was established; and, so far as he understood, it had never been the practice in England to issue blank warrants. Such warrants might have been resorted to in times gone by; but so strong was the feeling against them that the House of Commons itself had protested, and the Judges, in the most solemn manner, had decided that the issue of blank warrants was altogether illegal. Instead of permitting the issue of blank warrants in this case, he proposed that the Lord Lieutenant, in issuing a warrant for search, should specify into whose house, and at what hour, the search was to be made. By that means something would be done towards guarding the sanctity of the home. Nothing had been more insisted upon in English history than that an Englishman's house should be his castle. It was to carry out that principle that the Amendment was brought in. He would not say that there were not times and occasions when the Executive of the country might be called upon to violate the sanctity of a man's home. The Criminal Law offered instances when such a necessity arose; but it was the duty of the Government to provide that there should be no abuse of the power. If the Committee refused this Amendment, they would leave open to the Government a very wide field of abuse. It must be borne in mind that the Bill might not always be carried out under the guidance of Lord Spencer, a Nobleman whom they all respected, or of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was a man anxious to conduct the government of that country, as far as he was concerned, fairly and properly. He thought the Committee ought not to deprive the people of Ireland of their Constitutional rights without the strongest necessity being shown, and ample power being given, to restrain the exercise of the power of the Executive in cases where the public safety was not in danger. He trusted that the Government would insert this Amendment in the Bill.

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. T. C. Thompson) would forgive him if he declined to enter into the general discussion which ho had raised. The object of the clause was distinct from that which was inserted in the Act of 1870. Its object was to give to certain persons—the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary, for the time being, acting in any Constabulary district— the power of search for, and seizing, in any proclaimed district, or any part thereof, specified in the warrant, arms, ammunition, paper, documents, instruments, or articles suspected to be used, or intended to be used, in connection with any secret society, or secret association, for criminal purposes. It was not the general power to search for arms, but only a specific power to search for arms in connection with secret societies and criminal associations. "What the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) asked was this—that every warrant should be filled up with the names of the suspected persons, of the occupier of the house, and the hour at which the search was to be made. How could the Lord Lieutenant, in issuing his warrant, know the particular houses in which the documents or arms proposed to be searched for were secreted? [Derisive cheers from the Irish Members.] He hoped hon. Members would not misunderstand the object of the Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: A blank warrant.] It was nothing of the kind. Its only object was to give power to search any districts which were suspected for arms and other things, and it was desirable that that power should be exercised wherever such articles could be found. It was to protect a district from connection with the possession of unlawful arms, and with criminal associations, that the clause was proposed to be inserted in the Bill. This was an Amendment to the entire clause, and not to a particular part of it. Substantially the first requirement would be fulfilled; but it would be impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to specify the names of the occupiers of the houses. It would be impossible, also, that the Lord Lieutenant could give directions as to what time the search should be made. It might be reasonable, in the opinion of some hon. Members, to strike out the clause altogether, if they were of opinion that it was not desirable to detect these criminal purposes; but it would be ridiculous to retain it and to accept the proposed Amendment.

said, that the only object of the Amendment was to try to get the Government to confine the warrants to places or persons who were reasonably suspected; but, as the clause now stood, the warrant would be as described by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), a perfectly blank warrant, under which the police could search the house of any person in a particular county, and the object of the Amendment was to prevent an abuse of the powers conferred by the clause upon the police.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had accurately described the Amendment as an objection to the entire clause. It raised a question of very considerable importance—namely, whether the right of search by general warrant should be exercised in Ireland. All the principles of liberty were outraged by the Bill. By what means was this clause to be carried out? It was to be enforced by the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of the Constabulary. If the right were limited to the County Inspectors they were only some 30 in number, and they were mostly men of experience and discretion, and he should not object to the clause if it were so limited; but the Sub-Inspectors numbered some hundreds, many of them being mere boys, and a very few were men of experience in the Service. They comprised among them such men as Sub-Inspector Smith and Sub-Inspector Ball, of Ballina notoriety, and Sub-Inspector Webb.

said, the hon. Member was discussing a question which would arise upon the next Amendment, and not upon the Amendment then before the Committee.

said, he would at once close his arguments upon that point. The search warrant was to be a general warrant to remain in force for three months, and during all that time this general warrant might be made use of as an instrument of torture, and for the purpose of private revenge. The Sub-Inspectors were not generally on very good terms with the inhabitants, and in many parts of the country there were strong feelings of resentment and private pique entertained by them against the people. Was it necessary, for the purpose of discovering concealed arms, that a subordinate officer of the police should have in his possession a document for three months which would enable him to enter the house of any person, and conduct a search which would be regarded by the Irish people as an insulting search? The Government had referred to no figures in regard to this clause. They had given no figures with reference to the exercise of the power of search by night under the previous Act. They had abstained from giving the figures as to the number of strangers who had been arrested; but he thought it was most desirable, before the Committee were called upon to accept the clause, that some statistics should be set forth. They wanted to know whether this was a well-tried and proved weapon for detecting crime. A similar power existed in the Act of 1870, and he should like to know what the effect of the exercise of that power had been? How was the right exercised? How many searches were carried out, and what were the results? The Committee ought to be made acquainted with the total number of searches, and the total number of cases which had justified them. His contention was that this right to search had proved altogether inoperative in Ireland, and that arms and papers of the description specified were not generally concealed, and that, if they were concealed, they were not concealed in dwelling-houses, or in places likely to be searched. If the police had a power of divination, this general right of search for the existence of secret societies might be of value, and, perhaps, in some of the Irish bogs they might discover something; but, not possessing that attribute, all this was a matter "of sound and fury signifying nothing." It could have no other effect than to annoy and harass innocent people. He was glad the Amendment had been moved by an English Member, because he hoped that that fact would insure it greater attention from English Members generally than if it had been moved by a Member representing an Irish constituency. Before the Government insisted upon retaining the clause, he called upon them to show the necessity for it, and to prove that the exercise of similar power in past times had led to the slightest result.

said, he had no doubt this was a very stringent clause, and was not astonished that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), entertaining the views he did, took exception to it. But, in the state of things in Ireland, criminals obtained such an advantage over the law that it was absolutely necessary to give the Government exceptional power for enforcing the law. Secret crime in Ireland had reached such an extent as to fully warrant the Government in asking for a power of search; but he thought the policeman making the search should be bound to make some record of the grounds upon which he made it, otherwise this clause might be liable to be abused.

said, no clause of exceptional severity against the Irish people had ever been introduced into the House that some hon. Member was not ready to declare he saw the full necessity of. That was the raison d'être, in the view of the Government, for the Bill. Personally, he could not see that this provision was more necessary than any other portion of the Bill. Therefore, when he heard an hon. Member talk of the necessity of the Bill, he was inclined to think that that argument was growing somewhat stale. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was not aware that the Government already possessed in Ireland very exten- sive powers of search between sunrise and sunset. They had power to do what they liked in that respect. He wished to know if they proposed to repeal the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act? What was the present demand of the Government? Did they suppose that when the sun set a man removed from a bog, or any other hiding-place, his blunderbuss, and brought it into his own house for the purpose of taking it to bed with him? The Government had already the same power of searching a house in the day time as they now asked for, and the same power of searching at night. People often read in romantic sketches of arms being taken out of the bog, or out of the graveyard; but the only object for removing them in a case like this would be to bring them to the fireside to air. Nothing could be more absurd, and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) must be aware that the Government possessed all the powers of search they now asked for. The provision contained in the Peace Preservation Act lasted for five years, and the Government only asked for this for three. Why should they not propose it for six years, and spare themselves from any further extra trouble? It was astonishing how the Government always presumed on the ignorance of hon. Members in regard to anything connected with Ireland. The Act to which he had referred was called the Peace Preservation Act; but what peace it had preserved had always been an enigma to him. Most Members of the House of Commons spent their time gloriously downstairs, or anywhere except upon the floor of the House; and, as the English newspapers were in a conspiracy to burke the speeches of Irish Members, he was not astonished that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy should be ignorant of the existing state of things, and that the Irish Members should be compelled to repeat the arguments they had used over and over again upon this matter. He did not suppose, however, that they would produce very much effect or influence upon the Government; but whether that was due to a want of intelligence on the part of the Government or upon the part of Irish Members he would not pronounce an opinion. The provision of the Act of last year was that where the warrant was addressed to a Sub-Inspector it must be addressed to a particular individual, and must be used within 10 days. As the Bill was brought in a blank was left in the warrant, so that the Sub-Inspector might use it at any time, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill consented to limit the period to 10 days. If the arguments, then, used were sufficient to shorten the duration of the warrant from all eternity to 10 days, he did not see why the Government should not now consent to shorten the period in this instance. Why should a Sub-Inspector have three months for harassing an entire district? No doubt the Sub-Inspectors of Ireland were treated as if they were the sweetness and light of the country, and he had not the smallest desire to object to that view; indeed, he had very little doubt that if Mr. Clifford Lloyd were closely examined, it would be found that he possessed angel's wings floating out behind. Therefore, it was too much to ask that an entire district should not be given over to the ransacking of an Inspector at any hour of the day or night. In the last Bill the Government inserted a provision that arms should be paid for if they were given up, and they got more arms in consequence of that provision than from any other power conferred by the Act. They had instituted searches of the most stringent and even disgraceful character. They had pulled down the hay-stacks of the unfortunate peasants and scattered them to the winds, and let rain come down upon them; but not one stand of arms, nor one pound of gunpowder, nor one paper of percussion caps had they succeeded in discovering. He, therefore, claimed that under this Bill something in the nature of compensation should be given for injuries that might be inflicted in carrying out an abortive search.

wished to point out to the hon. Member that he was scarcely speaking to the Amendment before the Committee, but to the effect of the clause generally.

said, he was simply pointing out that a better way of obtaining arms and ammunition than the Government proposed would be found in providing compensation for the giving up of arms; but he would not continue in that strain if the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that he was out of Order. What he wished to say was, that in future these general warrants would be as ineffectual as they had been in the past. They had hitherto been used for the purpose of giving the people living in the district as much trouble as possible. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was known to be a humane man. He (Mr. Healy) had no authority to speak for hon. Members on that side of the House; but, as far as he was personally concerned, he was prepared to say that the right hon. Gentleman had afforded the greatest amount of satisfaction in his new Office. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would very greatly regret that cases should be brought under his notice such as those which were constantly referred to the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—cases in which houses had been burst open by the Sub-Inspectors, women pulled out of their beds, and obliged to dress themselves in the presence of five or six policemen, and then turned out of the room while the constables ransacked the premises. He could not understand why the resources of civilization should not have been kept back so as to enable those unfortunate women to dress, unless there was some fear that they might personally secrete something in the few moments the police might be kept out of the room. The Act was carried out in such an extremely objectionable manner, that in very numerous instances these poor women, after being expelled from their beds, were compelled to dress themselves in the presence of four or five constables. When such things occurred in a district, it was not a matter of surprise that they should excite a feeling of passion and hatred. It was this system of searching that had provoked reprisals in Ireland; and he asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would be willing to put into the Bill a Compensation Clause, such as that as was put in the last Bill, to compensate all persons who voluntarily surrendered the arms they possessed? At present the state of the case was this. A man's bed might be ripped up, the boards of his dwelling-house pulled to pieces, his mantelpiece knocked down, his hay-rick scattered to the winds, and other damage done; and what he wanted to know was, whether in such a case, the search having failed to discover concealed arms or ammunition, the owner of the property who had sustained injury would be compensated?

said, he must again point out to the hon. Member that he was speaking upon the general clause, and not upon the Amendment.

said, that, unfortunately, these things followed from an unrestricted right of search. He was only pointing out one of the consequences of passing this clause, and if he was not to argue in this way there was no use in his arguing at all. Therefore, he would resume his seat.

said, no matter had given so much dissatisfaction in connection with previous Coercion Acts as the exercise of this right of search. If it could be shown that it was of advantage, and that there was an absolute necessity for it, ho should have nothing to say; but he did not think that in this case the Government had made out a case sufficient to warrant the Committee in assenting to this very objectionable provision. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had stated, better than he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was able to do, the objections which wore raised to the exercise of this power in Ireland, and he would ask the Government if it was worth while to increase the ill-feeling of the people against their measures by adopting so arbitrary a provision? During the late Winter Assizes in Ireland, they had had some experience of the manner in which arms could be easily got away and put away in Ireland. The concealment of arms was, in point of fact, reduced to a system. A man did not take home a double-barrelled gun and hide it in his house; but men, many of whom had been formerly in Her Majesty's Service, were employed under "Moonlight" arrangements to convert them into "Moonlight" arms; and instead of having a firearm hidden away in its integrity, these men, who possessed a technical knowledge, took them to pieces, and a lock would be disposed of in one place, a barrel in another, and a stock in another. He, therefore, failed to see what advantage the Government would derive from this clause; and it would, undoubtedly, tend to inflame the bad feeling and the bad passions of the people against the Government. He had already expressed his opinion as to the desirability of passing some such measure as the present; but, at the same time, he felt that the Government, in asking for this clause, were asking for one that was quite unnecessary, and were asking for a power which would excite the bitterest feeling of hostility against themselves in Ireland.

said, he concurred with the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), that this clause would be regarded as a very odious one in Ireland; and he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) would be a very useful one indeed in restricting this right of search and placing it under some sort of rule. He might give an example as to how the right already existing had been used under the old Coercion Act. A tenant of his complained that his house had been searched. The tenant said he did not complain of the police searching it, provided they found anything in it; but he did complain that they held the power of searching it again and again, and asked him (Colonel Nolan) to interfere. He called the attention of the late Conservative Chief Secretary to the matter; and the argument he used was that, although something might be found if the search were conducted in the course of six months, it was not likely that anything would be discovered upon premises which were searched once a-week. In this particular instance the search was stopped. He was afraid that if the clause were passed as it now stood, and warrants were issued in the general way, the officer entrusted with the execution of them might employ the right of search as a means of molestation against an individual in regard to whom he had some private pique. If the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr T. C. Thompson) was introduced, the Lord Lieutenant would only grant a warrant when a necessity for it was shown, and there would be an essential control over the exercise of it, and there would be not nearly so much chance of the right being abused.

said, he strongly supported the Amendment. There was one subject to which no hon. Member had at present alluded. When this right of searching for arms and other matters was enforced in Ireland, it had always been known that that was the time in which spies and informers had been enabled to carry on with the greatest success their machinations. His own opinion was that the exact hour of the search should be named in the warrant; if not, it would give to this class of spies and informers in Ireland the opportunity of concealing arms or other things about the house of a man, and of then going to the Sub-Inspector and saying—"Such and such a man is concealing arms in a haystack, or in a barn, or in a corner of his house, and if you go at once you will discover them." A Sub-Inspector, armed with this terrible power, would go at once, and naturally would discover these things, the result of which would be that the unfortunate victim, although thoroughly innocent, would be subjected to severe punishment; while the spy, or the man who bore malice against the unfortunate victim, would remain unharmed, and even obtain a reward for his treachery. If the clause were safeguarded by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) this could scarely happen, because it would be necessary for the Sub-Inspector to obtain the insertion in the warrant of a particular hour for the search; and that might be made the means, to a large extent, of baffling a common informer who wished to carry out his own scheme of treachery. For that reason, if for no other, bethought the Amendment ought to be insisted upon.

said, he thought that before the Attorney General committed the Government to the clause he should have endeavoured to show that the already extensive powers which were given under the Act of 1881 had failed, and, if so, in what respect they had failed. As had already been pointed out, searches of a stringent character had been made under that Bill; and in some cases precautions of such an extraordinary character had been taken that it was utterly and completely impossible that any arms, if concealed in the houses which were searched, could have escaped discovery. The power of search had been exercised under the most favourable conditions; but, nevertheless, the Government had failed in the most signal manner to obtain the possession of concealed arms. What did that prove? That they had searched the houses of a good many people, and in almost the whole of them no arms were found at all. As had been pointed out, a Compensation Clause was placed in the last Bill for arms that were given up, and the result was that a large number of arms was surrendered under that clause, whereas scarcely any were discovered where the right of search was exercised. The Attorney General said that the present clause gave no general power to search at all, but only to search for particular arms and documents, &c, connected with secret associations. He wished to see how that would work. A district would be proclaimed, the Lord Lieutenant would send his warrant down to the Sub-Inspector of the district; and under that warrant the Sub-Inspector would be able to search every house in the county, not merely for arms, but for any documents which might be used in connection with criminal associations. But how was he to discover whether any letters or documents he came across did not come under the category unless he read every document that might be found in the man's house? Therefore, it was manifest that this a most unlimited power given to the police, which was to last for three months, and the right of search to be repeated day after day, at any hour of the day or night. The effect would be that every farmer in a proclaimed district would be completely at the mercy of the Police Inspector. The hon. Member for West-meath (Mr. Gill) had pointed out another important matter — namely, that very frequently in Ireland, when laws of this character were brought into operation, a man possessing a feeling of hostility to his neighbour placed in the thatch of his neighbour's house something which would bring him under the provisions of the Act, and then communicate it to the police. The consequence had been that, on more than one occasion, an innocent man had been sent to gaol for concealing arms, the existence of which he was in entire ignorance. Supposing, under this clause, a Constabulary officer received a general warrant, and an anonymous letter was forwarded to him, stating that in a particular house firearms were concealed, he would be bound, even though he did not know from whom the anonymous letter came, to act upon it, and search for the arms and documents pointed out. It would, therefore, be in the power of any man who chose to conceal arms in the thatch of a neighbour's house, or in the hay-stacks of his hay- yard, to bring the whole force of the law down upon him, and to cause an innocent man to be sent to gaol for three months under the Arms Act. He, therefore, thought it was absolutely necessary to insist on the warrant specifying the house that was to be searched, so as to afford some guarantee that before a search was made there was some reasonable ground for suspecting that arms were concealed.

rose to speak.

said, that the hon. Member had risen too late, the Question had been put to the Committee, and he thought the Noes had it. ["No, no!"]

rose to Order. Several Amendments had been handed in to the Clerk at the Table just before the rising of the House. These Amendments had been distributed amongst Members, but not in order, and the consequence of that had been that he had not been prepared to move his Amendment at the proper moment.

said, the point was that the last Amendment on which the Committee divided was moved after the word "warrant," and the Amendment of the hon. Member was after the word "time," which had been passed by the Committee. It was extremely difficult for the Chairman or the Clerks at the Table to deal with a large number of Amendments simultaneously handed in. He had, however, discovered that the Amendment of the hon. Member could not be put for the reason stated.

asked, with regard to the Amendments handed in to the Clerk at the Table, when hon. Members would have an opportunity of moving them? Ho had himself handed in several Amendments just before 7 o'clock, and it was then a quarter-past 9.

said, he had pointed out that the division on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) had carried the Committee down to the word "warrant." The hon. Member had now moved an Amendment after the word "time," which was not then before the Committee, and it could not, therefore, be put. He, therefore, called upon the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to proceed with the next Amendment.

rose to Order.

said, the point of Order had been already settled.

said, he had called on the hon. Member for Sligo.

rose to Order. Was not a Motion to report Progress before the Committee?

said, he had called on the hon. Member for Sligo before Progress was moved.

said, although he believed the Lord Lieutenant took the advice of the Privy Council with reference to all warrants, yet he was anxious that the form of the warrant should be prescribed. The Amendment which he was about to move was one intended to carry out the Act; and, therefore, he presumed that the Government would not object to it.

said, he had no objection to those words.

rose to Order.

said, when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo had been put, the hon. Member for Dungarvan could put his question to Order.

said, he had risen to a point of Order, before any other Member had risen, on the ordinary conduct of the Committee. Although the hon. Member for Sligo had been called, he (Mr. O'Donnell) had risen first. The question he wished to ask was, whether his Motion for Progress did not justly take precedence of the ordinary conduct of the Committee?

said, he had called on the hon. Member for Sligo, and saw him rise; he was, therefore, in possession of the Committee at the time the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) moved to report Progress.

asked if he could now move the Amendment, which the Chairman had been unable to put to the Committee, with regard to information on oath and in writing being laid before the Lord Lieutenant?

said, the hon. Member could now move.

said, the object of his Amendment was to guard, as far as possible, the use of the power contained in this clause, and to limit it to cases where the Lord Lieutenant had proper information before him for the purpose of taking this extreme action.

said, he was unable to accept this Amendment. He wished, however, with the indulgence of the Committee, to state the intention of Her Majesty's Government with reference to an important point in the clause. He was aware that the present was not the stage of the Bill at which the statement should be made, yet he desired to make it at that stage, because it might affect the discussion upon the remaining portion of the clause. It had been thought necessary to ask for power for making searches in given districts, and without limiting them to any particular hours. But the Government were aware that there was the keenest feeling with regard to this clause as to search by night; and, although they were not prepared to give it up, they were prepared to limit it in such a manner as would insure that there should be no search at night except where there was reasonable suspicion that a secret society was holding a meeting, and to move an Amendment to this effect later on.

said, he thought that the Prime Minister had made a most reasonable concession. He could quite understand the Prime Minister taking the power of search in the case of a secret society which was holding a meeting. Although, of course, he could not support this Act, still he was prepared to admit that if such an Act had to be passed it was perfectly fair that the power reserved by the Prime Minister should be taken. He repeated that this was a most important concession on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he quite agreed that the concession of the Prime Minister was a most important one, and begged to offer the right hon. Gentleman his sincere thanks. Still, there was one question which he desired to put. Supposing that the police proceeded to make a search, having entered the place, would the police be enabled to withdraw if there were no meeting sitting?

said, that would, no doubt, be the case.

said, he thought it necessary to refer to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), which sought to impose on the Lord Lieutenant the necessity of receiving information on oath before he granted the warrant of search. The Prime Minister said it was intended that this right of search should not be exercised in the night-time unless there was reasonable suspicion that a treasonable meeting was being held. He (Mr. Leamy) asked on whose determination was that search to be made? Were the Committee to understand that a general warrant would be issued to an Inspector of Constabulary in the district, telling him that he was not to make this search in the night-time, unless he had some reason to believe that a treasonable meeting was being held in a certain house, and that treasonable documents or arms would be found there? He did not underrate the concession of the Prime Minister; but he felt it his duty to ask what guarantee Irish Members had that a Sub-Inspector, armed with a warrant of search, would not proceed to search for documents and other things, after he found that there was no treasonable meeting being held? Surely there should be some investigation before a warrant was issued, because a policeman might be told by some irresponsible person that a treasonable meeting was being held, and upon that information he would be obliged to go to the place and make a search. Therefore, although he quite understood the spirit in which the Prime Minister had proposed the alteration, he failed to see, unless there were some explicit words put into the Bill to limit the power of Sub-Inspectors to make searches, that the concession would not be rendered valueless.

said, he wished to point out that the clause was drawn for the purpose of enabling Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary to make search for arms and illegal documents. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would introduce an Amendment later on into the clause which would prevent search by night, except where there was reason to suspect that a meeting was being held of a secret society or illegal society in the house or about the premises in which the search was being made. But the question he had to put to the right hon. Gentleman was this— For what purpose was the search to be made? Was it to be made under these circumstances—that was to say where there was reasonable suspicion that a secret society was holding a meeting, search was to be made for the purpose of discovering arms or illegal documents for the purpose specified in the clause? Or was it to be made for the purpose of discovering the meeting? In the latter case, he would respectfully submit to the Prime Minister that the most convenient course would he to cut out the power of search by night as regarded arms and illegal documents, and bring up a new clause dealing with the right of entry—he said entry, because it was not a correct definition to call it right of search—at night for the purpose of discovering whether there was an illegal meeting being held or not. He repeated that the clause only referred to search for the purpose of discovering arms and illegal documents; and he feared that if the power of search were left expressly stated in the clause, it would be used by the police for all manner of searches en- tirely apart from the question whether illegal documents or arms were to be found or not.

said, he was competent to speak of the view taken of this clause by the Lord Lieutenant, who had arrived at his conclusion after careful consultation with persons of authority in the disturbed districts. The Lord Lieutenant, under that advice, came to the conclusion that the power to search for arms and documents at night was an unnecessary element in a Bill of this kind. The Lord Lieutenant, however, held strongly to the necessity of having the power of entering premises where it was supposed that men were engaged in concocting crime. The Government had not yet obtained from the Lord Lieutenant the exact suggestion as to the sub-section which they would propose for the purpose of arming themselves with this power. But that sub-section the Government proposed to put in on the Report, and they would lay great stress on having it in the clearest form possible. Acting on the advice of the Lord Lieutenant, they were willing that there should be no night search for arms, documents, or other matters, except upon the condition stated by the Prime Minister.

said, he understood, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that the Government proposed to leave in the clause words giving power to the police to make search in the manner described in the daytime, and that the Government would bring up a sub-section on Report, giving the police power with regard to entering premises at night for the purpose of detecting illegal meetings.

Yes, Sir.

begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for the concession he had made; but he had announced his intention, previous to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to move a Proviso to this clause, to the effect that no entry or search should be made in any church or place of worship, monastery, nunnery, or conventual establishment in Ireland, except in the presence of a magistrate. It was now unnecessary; but he would throw out to the Government whether the right of search could not be modified by such a right of sanctuary as was prevalent previous to the Reformation? The Committee would readily understand the feeling which existed amongst Irish Roman Catholics; and he thought the reservation which they had proposed to ask for was one which ought to be adopted for the purpose of satisfying the just susceptibilities of his countrymen, who would certainly view it with gratitude.

said, he agreed with the general spirit of the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Marum). Still, he thought, on a question of violation of domestic privacy, even a policeman would draw a distinction between the laity and the clerical world. If, however, the police made a mistake in the case of monasteries and other institutions, the Government would, of course, have to deal with the enormous and extreme unpopularity which would result there from. He confessed he should be sorry to see an exception of that kind in so many words introduced into the Bill. He had every reason to express a hope that the Prime Minister, who had met this difficulty in such a broad and statesmanlike spirit, would take into consideration the precautions impressed on the Government by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy)—namely, that there should be some protection against the police, on the plea of searching for illegal meetings, making use of the plea to break into houses during the night-time. He did not know whether the Government were prepared to introduce words to bring about that desirable result. Probably the only check to this over-zeal on the part of policemen was to be found in the strict supervision of their superiors, and he thought the police authorities ought to take care to inform the police that where they made use of the power of search in an undue manner they would incur the displeasure of their superiors. He might add that though the limitation of search for illegal meetings was a most valuable one with regard to the privacy of Irish householders, and one which, at the same time, did not interfere with the just powers and rights of the Government to deal with crime, yet he thought the right hon. Gentleman could not take too many precautions in guarding against his subordinates mistaking mere friendly meetings for meetings of secret societies, and treating them accordingly, unless something like very reasonable suspicion was entertained. He would not suggest the addition to the clause of any particular words; but he trusted that, in the instructions given to the police, great care would be taken on this point, because, if uncontrolled power of search were given to every policeman, all the aggravation and arrogance would be caused to the people, under cover of search for illegal societies at night, which the Government were desirous to save them from.

said, he wished to apologize if he had led the Committee into anything like a discussion upon the alteration which the Government intended to make with regard to the right of search for arms and documents at night. He had endeavoured to make it clear that his announcement was made for the convenience of the Committee in dealing with the remaining portion of the clause. One word more. It had been said that reasonable suspicion was a thing which might be abused. But the same could be said of the word "suspected" in the first part of the clause as it then stood. Of course, the meaning of the Proviso intended to be inserted was that, although the police would be allowed to search only in case there was reasonable suspicion of a meeting of an illegal society being held, yet, having entered upon their search, it would, of course, be their duty to obtain anything in the nature of evidence with regard to the meeting which they might have been informed was going on.

said, that, although, considerable interest had naturally arisen from the statement of the Prime Minister, he must remind the Committee that there was a large number of Amendments to the clause, which it would be difficult to deal with unless hon. Members proceeded with their arguments upon the Amendment before the Committee.

said, he agreed with the desirability of not entering into a discussion upon the statement of the Prime Minister at that moment; but, at the same time, he thought it right to endeavour to obtain as much information as he could without discussing the intended Amendment. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the police, having entered a house and found no illegal meeting was to be held, would proceed with their search for arms and documents, or whether they would make only such search as would be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining that no illegal meeting was being held?

said, he understood that there would be an opportunity for any Member, who did not wish at that moment to interrupt the course of Business, to express any objection which he might have to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Certainly, before the clause was put, he should like to make some observations upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he wished also to express his thanks for the concession made by the Prime Minister. He trusted he should not be anticipating the discussion on a subsequent Amendment by expressing the hope that the Government would recognize the importance of making a further concession in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum).

said, he must point out that it was imperative that the Amendments on the Paper should now be proceeded with.

said, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he proposed to omit, in line 11, the words "and sub-inspectors." Although the two Amendments standing in his name were very close together in point of time, yet they referred to a very different state of circumstances. In submitting to the Committee his last Amendment, he was attempting to bring in a clause which would insure to a free people the power to prevent their homes being entered, and to prevent any assault being made on their liberty, except by warrants definite and clear in their nature. But in the Amendment he was about to move, he dealt with the interests of persons subject to a law which rendered them no longer a free people. He believed hon. Members would be alive to the fact that it was more difficult to govern a people by despotism than it was to govern them on the principles of freedom. In the one case you had the assistance of every inhabitant of the country in preserving the peace and order of society, whereas, in the second case, you were dealing with people more or less your foes. Consequently, if peace was to be preserved, those who were practically despots must take care to do nothing to irritate what, perhaps, he might call the heart-broken people of Ireland. Nothing had tended more in past time to break down despotism than irritation. He need scarcely refer to the history of this country, which showed that at one time the Monarchy was almost broken down by the Act of a Minister—

said, he must remind the hon. Member that he was travelling from the question before the Committee.

said, his remarks were intended to support his Motion to eliminate the words "sub-inspectors" from the clause. He was arguing that under a despotism irritation was dangerous, because by acts of carelessness a Government which it was desired to preserve might be overthrown. Since the passing of the Act of last year, there had been a most remarkable increase of terrible crime in Ireland. Many reasons had been assigned for this increase, but he was inclined to think it had been caused by depriving the people of Ireland of that interest in their own concerns which belonged to every people. Having taken away from them that interest, having found a great increase not only in ordinary but in fearful crime, he wished that, as far as possible, fresh causes of irritation should be removed, and that Her Majesty's Government should take care in passing this Bill to make it work, if possible, smoothly. He, therefore, proposed to leave out that cause of irritation which arose from the employment, in searches for arms and documents, of sub-officials —people who were always willing to assume an authority which did not belong to them. The subject to which he asked the attention of the Committee was one of considerable importance. The whole of Europe, so to speak, was gazing upon that Committee, wondering at the events which had taken place in Ireland, and at the legislation proposed to deal with them; and he contended that it was a matter of necessity, in passing this Act, that all causes of irritation of the kind he had alluded to should be removed.

said, he was afraid that if the eyes of Europe were gazing upon the Committee, Europe would have discovered that the hon. Member for Durham's idea of a Sub-Inspector of Constabulary was not a very clear one. A Sub-Inspector of Constabulary was, in point of education, very much like a subaltern officer; and, as far as his experience went, a subaltern of high order. The clause before the Committee, he need hardly point out, was one of extreme importance. It was not put in for the sake of appearance only, but in order that it might work; and, that being so, it was necessary that there should be a sufficient number of people to work it. It was a fact that there was only one Inspector in each county, and he might be at that time 30 or 40 miles away from the spot at which his services might be required; whereas in the case of Sub-Inspectors, there were 10 to 12 in each county, and if the clause was to work effectively he could not imagine a body of men more fitted to discharge the delicate duties which the clause imposed. The hon. Member for Durham had made an appeal to the Government not to pass another Act such as the Arms Act of last year, because since the time it came into operation an increase of crime had resulted. Her Majesty's Government, however, believed that in order to diminish crime the best way was carefully to study it and to see by what full, careful, and minute provisions this diminution could be effected. There were clauses in the Arms Act of last year which were found to be inefficient; but in this Bill the Government had introduced provisions which they believed would have the effect of putting down crime, although those provisions were milder in their character. For the reasons he had given he was unable to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham; and, in concluding his observations, he took an opportunity of expressing his belief that the Sub Inspectors of the Irish Constabulary were a body of men thoroughly to be trusted in this matter.

said, he did not wish to detract from the character of Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary, so far as their education was concerned; but the right hon. Gentleman must have paid very little attention to the history of Ireland during the last year, or he would have known that among that body many of it members had behaved in a way that did not recommend itself to his Predecessor in Office. The Sub-Inspectors to whom he referred were associated with deeds of a very questionable character, and it seemed almost impossible that the right hon. Gentleman could wish them to have anything to do with the carrying out of another Coercion Act. It was true that there was only one Inspector in each county; but the Government were asking to interfere with the peace, the privacy, and, to some extent, with the happiness of every home in Ireland, and, therefore, he thought he was not asking too much that the highest police authority in the district should alone be intrusted with the duty of carrying out this very objectionable clause.

said, that the concession of the Prime Minister was of so substantial a character that, on the supposition that it would be carried out bonâ fide, he believed there was now no difference between Irish Members and the Government with regard to this clause, except upon small matters of detail. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that the Government had already the power for five years to search for arms in houses in Ireland between sunrise and sunset. Now, he understood the Prime Minister was only prepared to ask that where the police had information of an illegal meeting taking place, they should have the power of search at night. If that were so, he thought Irish Members would be prepared to grant this clause as a whole. At any rate, for his part, he was prepared to do so, and to move no more Amendments to the clause if the Prime Minister was prepared to carry out the words he had used. As he understood it, all the Government asked in this clause was that the police should have the power to search for arms and illegal documents— not to pull down chimney-pieces, rip up floors, or turn decent women out of their beds, and compel them to dress themselves in the presence of constables. If it were understood that the police, on finding that no illegal meeting was being held, should immediately retire, then lie would vote for the Government on every Amendment that was proposed to this clause. He again thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made, which was one worthy of his character and of the position he held in that House.

said, he was most reluctant again to intervene in this discussion, because he felt so much the force of the rule laid down from the Chair. But the hon. Member for Wexford had addressed to the Government an intimation of his intention, on certain conditions, to support the Government in reference to Amendments which might be proposed to this clause. If ho understood the words of the hon. Member rightly, he believed the Government were prepared to act as he had described. He could not say more than that at the present moment; but there was one remark which he felt bound to make. The hon. Member for Wexford and other hon. Members, in the course of their observations, had given him the credit of proposing this alteration; but he was bound to say that that credit was entirely due to his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had looked into this matter with the sincere desire that the Government should ask that which was necessary, and only necessary. It was the Lord Lieutenant himself to whom the credit of this concession was due.

said, he was fully sensible of the importance of the concession of the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had scarcely expressed the views of Irish Members upon this subject. His hon. Friend had said that the Government, by the Arms Act of last year, were entitled to search for arms for a period of five years in any house in Ireland; but he must point out that under this clause they would be entitled to search not only for arms, but for papers and documents. For his own part, he thought it right and proper to proceed with the discussion of the Amendment before the Committee. That Amendment was of extreme importance, and it was one which the Government should be willing to accept. Of course, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was perfectly accurate in saying that there was only one Chief Inspector in the county; but it must be remembered that the search contemplated by this clause was one of very great delicacy, and he thought the Government ought to concede the point that the search should be conducted by the highest police-officer in the county, whose functions could not be said to be very elaborate, and whose time, in consequence, might very well be spared. It must be remembered that these Sub-Inspectors were, as a rule, young men, and that some of them had given instances of great rashness of temper. He would refer to the case of Sub-Inspector Ball, who, it was well known, had exasperated the feelings of the people of Ireland to a considerable degree. Now, he thought that the powers of the clause should not be committed to a body which contained men of the character he had referred to. Although he felt the value of the right hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to night-searches, he believed that the employment of Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary was not the best arrangement that could be made, and that it might, on occasion, prove to be dangerous. If the Government did not think the County Inspectors sufficiently numerous to carry out the object of the clause, he asked whether they would arrange for the senior Sub-Inspectors to be placed in command of a body of officers, many of whom were young men?

said, that, in view of the fact that the Government were empowered to make search for arms under the Arms Act, he would ask the Prime Minister whether he would not get rid altogether of the search for documents? He objected to the words "sub-inspectors," not on the ground stated by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), but simply because he desired that the Lord Lieutenant should, as far as possible, abandon this general warrant of search. He regarded it as a most infamous thing that, after the long connection which had existed between England and Ireland, a general warrant of search should be conferred upon any man in Ireland; and, if the Government had decided that it should be given, he should feel it his duty to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), because it might, to some extent, limit the objectionable character of this clause.

said, he would be bound to vote with his hon. Friends, although he thought, after the substantial concession made by the Prime Minister, the Amendment might very fairly be withdrawn. He himself had an Amendment to the clause, but he should certainly withdraw it. He should vote with his Party, but he thought they had got more concessions on this clause than on any other. Ho was of opinion that on this question they ought to give the Government as little trouble as possible.

said, the Government could not do better than make a few more concessions, and then he had no doubt the Bill would pass through the House with extreme rapidity. The point before them was the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), and the object of that Amendment was to limit the power of arbitrary search. He had no doubt the Irish Constabulary were a very efficient body of men; but it was now attempted by the Government to vest them with most unreasonable powers, for they could enter, under this Act, any man's house at their will and pleasure. He held that that was a power that Englishmen would resent, and that which the Irish people were justified in resenting. For all political purposes the Government had sufficient power, without this particular power of arbitrary search; and he was certain that this clause, as it stood, would create the maximum of discontent with the minimum of service to the country. If there was one clause in former Coercion Acts which more exasperated the people than any other, it was a clause similar to this. If his hon. Friend went to a division he should certainly vote with him, for they were only asking for a limitation of action which would be of no service, and might be a great detriment.

said, that, from his knowledge of the Constabulary, it would be impossible to omit the word "sub-inspector." The object was to place on responsible officers the execution of these warrants, and, if he remembered rightly, in no former Bill of this character was the word "inspector" or "sub-inspector" omitted. These words were introduced as a safeguard to insure that the execution of these warrants would not be placed in the hands of the ordinary policeman. He held that when a warrant reached the hands of the County Inspector, he would choose the right man to carry out the delicate work; and he thought that if his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) were acquainted with thee circumstances of the police in Ireland, he would not now be found moving this Amendment.

said, that, after what he had heard, he thought it would be only courteous to the Prime Minister if he withdrew the Amendment.

said, that the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had said that the words "sub-inspector" had been introduced into the Bill for the purpose of rendering it necessary that responsible officers of the peace should have the execution of the warrant. So far as that was the object of the Government, he was quite willing to admit it was deserving of some respect. He, however, wished it to be understood that he objected, and he certainly thought that the majority of his Colleagues would object, to the words "sub-inspector," and that they would support the Amendment to leave them out simply because they would limit the exercise of these general warrants. He admitted that the Prime Minister had spoken very fairly; but it must be remembered that this clause was one which restricted the liberties of the Irish people, and it was a clause which the Irish people were bound to resent and resist. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) had said that he believed that the power given under this clause would bring about the maximum of discontent with the minimum of service to the State. He (Mr. Leamy) believed that the only service which this clause in this Bill could be would be that it would produce ill-feeling against the ignorant brood of men who knew nothing about the Irish people, and cared very little about them, and who were incapable of understanding them. ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. and learned Member opposite said "Oh, oh !"They were accustomed to look upon those Benches for the Whigs—

The question before the Committee is whether "and sub-inspectors" be left out of the clause?

said, he would endeavour to confine himself to the subject. The subject was a very small one indeed, as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had intimated by his interjection. It was an exceedingly small subject; in fact, it seemed to him that every Amendment which hon. Members on this side of the House moved to this Bill was something exceedingly small indeed, and scarcely worthy of the consideration of the Committee. He was quite aware of it. He was quite aware that they should allow this Bill to pass without opposition, even though it embraced within it provisions which the Whigs—

I must point out to the hon. Member that this is not a second reading. The question is simply whether "sub-inspectors" shall stand part of the clause?

said, ho objected to "sub-inspectors," simply because, for one reason, he thought that if the power of executing warrants of general search was confined to County Inspectors, then, as everybody must admit, it would be confined to a much smaller class than if Sub-Inspectors were allowed to exercise it. He objected to the whole power of general search. He and his hon. Friends had endeavoured to defeat it. They had, however, failed, and the next best thing for them to do was to endeavour to limit its exercise as much as they possibly could.