Perhaps it will suit the convenience of the House if I state the course we propose to adopt under the altered circumstances of the case. Since I presented the Report from the Committee on Public Petitions on Monday last, the matter has assumed a much more serious aspect. We cannot doubt, from the information we have received, that frauds of the most barefaced and extensive character have been perpetrated against the authority and privileges of Parliament. Under these circumstances, the Committee on Public Petitions are prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), that a thorough searching and exhaustive inquiry should be instituted into the matter. The Committee are prepared to institute that inquiry themselves; and, therefore, I have to move that the Order for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Special Report of April 25 be discharged. At the same time, we think that it would not be wise for the House to part with the Petition. All I can say is, that I regret that this necessity should have arisen; but we shall endeavour to discharge, to the best of our ability, any duty which the House may impose upon us. I beg to move, after the discharge of the Order—

"That the Report be referred back to the Committee, with an Instruction that they do inquire into the circumstances under which, and the parties by whom, the names appearing on the Petition referred to were thereunto appended."

I think that the words which have fallen from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Petitions fully justify the action I took last week in moving the adjournment of the debate. I was then of opinion that if the Order that the Petition should lie on the Table was then discharged, the House would have lost its hold upon that Petition. I hoped that the Committee might be able to do something to identify the person who had forged the Petition and the signatures attached to it, and to identify further the person who had employed him to forge the signatures. If I am right in my conjecture, the gentleman—if that be the proper term by which to designate him—who employed the person who forged this Petition is a gentleman whose name will appear whenever the Committee which is now sitting upstairs makes its Report with reference to the chargest against the Corporation of the City of London. He is the gentleman whose name appears in the City Accounts. I am not at liberty, Sir, as you decided last week, to refer to any of the evidence which has been given before the Committee upstairs. My mouth is closed in that respect; but I am entitled to say that I am speaking now of a gentleman whose name appears in the City Accounts as having been employed by the Special Committee which is now taking action to obtain the renewal of the Coal and Wine Dues. I am sure that I shall be able, and that the Committee on Public Petitions will be able, to ascertain that there are several Aldermen and members of the Corporation of London who have expressed an opinion that the obtaining of signatures by the payment of money is a praiseworthy proceeding under the circumstances. I believe the Committee will be able to ascertain that within the last three and a-half months one gentleman alone has received more than £400 from the City of London for procuring such Petitions. In addition to the particular Petition reported on last week, I believe the Committee will be able to ascertain that there have been other Petitions presented every signature of which is forged. One of them, I am told, contains such signatures as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Joseph Biggar, and W. H. Smith, of the Strand. Of course, it may be that at the address which is given of "the Strand" there is another Mr. W. H. Smith, or otherwise that signature will certainly turn out to be a forgery. It may be that "Joseph Biggar," described as a pork merchant, is not the hon. Member of that same name who has a seat in this House, or otherwise that also will turn out to be a forgery. If I am rightly informed, the Committee on Public Petitions will be able to ascertain that one of these Petitions which have been presented purports to be signed by no less than 13 race horses. I believe that the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) has paid some attention to the development of mind in animals; but this is a new phase in that development, which has never come within my experience before. I do not think, however, that the matter is one upon which I ought to jest. The whole subject of Petitioning to this House is one which requires to be dealt with as a question of exceeding gravity. I undertook, four years ago, if an inquiry were granted on a Petition in which I was very much interested, to prove that the signatures of children of two, three, four, and six months old had been attached to a Petition; and, even allowing for the spread of education since the Act of 1870, it certainly requires a strong effort of imagination to suppose that those signatures were genuine. The right of petitioning this House ought to be regarded as a right, and a duty exercised by citizens with a view of bringing before this House matters which they cannot otherwise bring forward; but if the canvassers for Petitions are to be paid for obtaining signatures, the whole thing is rendered corrupt at once. In many instances, I am afraid, means have been resorted to for manufacturing signatures, and the whole matter of petitioning has been reduced to a monstrous absurdity. I thank the Committee on Public Petitions for the action they have taken in the matter; and I believe that this is a very proper Petition upon which to take that action. I should not have interposed last week if it had not been that I wished to prevent the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions from contenting himself with passing the matter over by merely moving the discharge of the Order directing the Petition to lie on the Table, because I was anxious to see that in a case of this kind, where a deliberate fraud has been perpetrated on this House, the persons who have been guilty of that fraud should, if possible, receive the punishment they deserve. I trust that the Committee will have power to examine witnesses on oath, so that they may be prosecuted if they give false evidence, and that they shall also have power to send for persons and papers. I trust, further, that the Committee will not be content with the punishment of the tools, but that they will bring to the knowledge of the House those by whom such tools have been employed, so that they also may be punished.

There is no one who more deplores than I do the fact that any Petition presented to this House should not be what it purports to be—namely, the Petition of the individuals whose names are attached to it. It must, however, be apparent to the House, as has been alleged by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), that not only are Petitions got up on this particular subject upon one side which purport to be signed by persons who have not really signed them, but there is every reason to believe that in this instance there have been Petitions of a similar nature presented against the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues. I would, therefore, express a hope that the inquiry of the Committee may be extended to all Petitions which may have been presented on this subject, and that the parties may be represented by counsel. I certainly think that the Committee on Public Petitions should be required to examine—and carefully to examine—all the Petitions which, have been presented against the Coal and Wine Dues as well as those which have been presented in favour of their continuance. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention a fact which occurred only on Wednesday last. On that day all the Metropolitan Members were flooded with Petitions against the Coal and Wine Dues. It appears that an individual named John Lloyd, who resides at Lancaster House, Savoy, and was at one time, and I believe is at present, the Secretary of the Municipal Reform League, was the collector of these Petitions, and I think some step ought to be taken to ascertain the character of those Petitions. Probably the Petitions to which I refer are called into existence by some organization—may be of coal merchants, or of gas company proprietors, or of some league of London Municipal Reformers. I trust that this inquiry will take place, and that it will be a searching one. I, for one, do not in the slightest degree deprecate its taking place; but I think it ought to be an equitable inquiry, and that it should deal with the allegations which have been made all round. I would, further, express a wish that the Committee also include within the inquiry, how it has happened that certain political meetings which have been held in the Metropolis have been recently broken up? All I can say is that at very many meetings I have addressed in London I have curiously enough recognized a small knot of the same faces and heard the same noisy voices who have done their utmost to disturb the proceedings, but have not succeeded in their object owing to the good sense of the majority of the audience. All that I ask is that the inquiry, when it takes place, shall not be confined to one side, but that it shall include the facts equally on the one side and the other. With regard to the hon. Member for Northampton, the constituency he represents appears to be a very lucky one, seeing that the two hon. Members who represent it are not only able to attend to the wants of the 50,000 inhabitants of that town, but have ample time to devote to the affairs of other people.

Perhaps the the hon. Member will excuse me for reminding him that I am a citizen of London.

I presume that the hon. Member speaks in this House not as a citizen of London, but as a Member of Parliament. [Mr. BRADLAUGH: Hear, hear.] I would venture again to express a hope that the Inquiry which, I presume, will be entered into, will be an inquiry all round, and that the Committee will carefully investigate not only how the Petitions in favour of the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues have been got up, but also how the Petitions against almost every municipal institution in the Metropolis have been got up.

It seems to me that the matter before the House is the Petition which has been called in question by the Committee on Public Petitions, and not whether some other Petitions which may have been presented to the House are of a similar character. I say this without any fear as to the result of any investigation which may take place. I trust that the Committee will be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to who has paid for the getting up of these Petitions, and who has been at the bottom of the bogus meetings which have been held in the Metropolis in favour of the renewal of the Coal and Wine Dues.

As a Member of the Committee on Public Petitions I should like to say, in reference to one observation which fell from the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) that at the meeting of the Committee to-day a decision was arrived at that the Inquiry should embrace the Petitions both for and against the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues.

Perhaps the House, by its indulgence, will permit me to say that as the hon. Member for East St. Pancras has pledged himself to a knowledge of fictitious signatures attached to Petitions presented on the other side he will feel it his duty to attend the inquiry of the Committee and give evidence.

I understand that the Petition has been referred back to a Committee which already exists, and of which three form a quorum. I would suggest that in an important matter of this kind the quorum should be increased to five.

If it is the pleasure of the House that the quorum should be increased, the House has the power of increasing it.

I am certainly of opinion that it is of the utmost importance that the Committee should have the power to examine witnesses on oath.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the swords served out to the City of London Artillery are in the condition in which they were originally issued, and that, consequently, the explanation given of the failure of the Infantry bayonets, owing to structural alteration, does not apply to them; whether the worthless-ness is due to their manufacture from an improper material—namely, Bessemer steel; and, who had the contract for; and, who passed these swords?

(who replied) said: The sword bayonets of which the City of London Artillery are in possession are in the condition, so far as pattern is concerned, in which they were originally issued. No structural alteration has been made in them. An inspection of these sword bayonets is now in progress; and until it is completed it is impossible to say by whom these particular weapons were made, and who passed them. The manufacture of sword bayonets of the pattern referred to commenced in 1854, and went on till 1876. Large numbers were obtained from contractors at home and abroad, and many were made at Enfield. Those made at Enfield were all of "Firth's steel;" and the specification for those obtained by contract required that they should be of the best cast steel.

said: The Report as to sword bayonets has not yet been received; but we are pressing for it. With reference to intrenching tools, it appears that a number of ordinary shovels issued to the 2nd Battalion of the East Kent Regiment were recently broken while being used by the troops. Opinions differ materially as to whether the usage to which these shovels were subjected was fair or otherwise. They have been returned into store; and the Inspector General of Fortifications has been requested to assist in thoroughly investigating the question.

The Amendment which I propose to move is one which has reference to the application of this Bill by means of a Proclamation. It seems to me that we ought to know from the Government exactly to what portions of Ireland they intend to apply the measure. At the present moment we know that Ireland, with two or three exceptions, is peaceful and orderly, and my Amendment is to omit the words "in a proclaimed district." The clause, as it stands, says that—

"Where the Attorney General for Ireland believes that any offence, to which this section applies, has been committed in a proclaimed district, he may direct a Resident Magistrate to hold an inquiry."

Now, I assert that the County of Kerry, the City of Londonderry, and the town of Belfast are the only places where offences, which might be brought under this Bill, have been committed during the last 12 months, and I think we are entitled to know from the Government exactly what the districts are which they have in their mind. We all know that Belfast has been the scene of bloody riots, almost bordering on civil war, for which, practically, no person has yet been brought to justice. We also know that in regard to the City of Derry the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) was petitioned against and unseated; and although he was not mentioned in the Report of the Election Judges as having been personally guilty of corrupt practices, several of his supporters were reported. We know, further, that in the County of Kerry there have been several crimes committed. What I want to know is whether the Government will tell us exactly what portions of Ireland they conceive this Bill ought to be made applicable to, because, in my judgment, if these words are allowed to remain in the clause without some qualification, what might happen is this. The Government might proclaim the whole of Ireland outside the Province of Ulster; and, whenever any Catholics are murdered in Ulster, as usually takes places in the month of July, no Proclamation would be issued, and the stringent provisions of the Act would not be put in force. It, therefore, seems to me that we ought to know from the Government exactly what the districts of Ireland are which they propose to proclaim under this Bill. We know that in very recent years, under the Crimes Act, a murder of a most brutal character was perpetrated on a Catholic in Ulster, Philip M'Guire, but no inquiry was held, and the perpetrator escaped the consequences of his crime. Then, again, in the City of Derry, although the Government were represented there on a recent occasion by a learned Queen's Counsel, and an investigation was held into certain charges of bribery and corruption which had taken place in that city, and which led to the unseating of the Member who had been returned to represent it in Parliament, the Government have never since made the slightest attempt to make use of the information brought to their notice, nor has the Public Prosecutor pursued an investigation into the corrupt practices which took place at that election. The Government have simply allowed the whole matter to drop. Now, it seems to me that if the provisions of this Bill are to be honestly administered, and were I, unfortunately, to come under its provisions, we should find some gentleman occupying some distinguished position in connection with the Government who would be eager to prosecute me. I am, therefore, induced to ask what the regions of the country are which the Government intend to occupy, and whether the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is to be put in force in Kerry and Clare, while Belfast and Londonderry are to be exempted? Let us know, at any rate, what are the districts which are to be proclaimed, and what counties are to be proclaimed. What are the districts to which the Government propose to apply this measure? In order to give the Government an op- portunity of answering the question, I will move that the words "in a proclaimed district" be struck out of the clause; and if that is done, I shall then propose to move to insert the words "Kerry, Londonderry, and Belfast," and I shall give my reasons for including the two latter places.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked for information which he is perfectly well aware it is not in the power of the Government to give. We have laid down from the beginning that we mean the provisions of this Bill to apply to those parts of Ireland, and those parts of Ireland only, where the existence of such crime may be found to exist as will justify its application. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me now to leave out the words "in a proclaimed district," and to insert in the Bill other words to bind the Government as to the districts in which the Act will be put into operation. The hon. and learned Member must see that that Amendment and the consequent Amendment are inconsistent with the whole scope of the measure.

I am certainly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not thought fit to tell us whether Belfast is to be proclaimed or not. There have been more people killed and wounded in Belfast in the last six months than in all the rest of Ireland during the last six years. A Royal Commission, appointed by the Government themselves, has inquired into the matter so far as Belfast is concerned, although no attention has been paid to their recommendation. I want to know if the Catholics of Ireland are to go unprotected when this Bill is passed; and whether it is to be applied only in the interests of the landlord party? I shall certainly press for information in regard to Belfast. There is in that town a large body of people with arms in their hands who have committed murder and outrage, but have been acquitted with applause in an open Court. Although, in one instance, a soldier and a policeman wore killed, and in a second a policeman was seriously wounded, no person has, as yet, been hanged. I wish to know whether, under the circumstances, the Government consider that we ought to allow our co-religionists in the North of Ireland to be killed and wounded by their friends with impunity? I think we are fairly entitled to know what parts of Ireland are to be proclaimed under this Bill; and whether in that blood-stained region of Belfast, where 30 people have been killed, Her Majesty's troops shot at, and members of the Constabulary murdered, the criminals are to escape scot free?

What the hon. and learned Member has a right to know, and what I will at once tell him, is that the Government will exercise perfect impartiality between different creeds and different parts of Ireland.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has informed the Committee that the Act is not intended to apply to any part of Ireland except where crime exists. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: And disorder.] The right hon. Gentleman did not use the word "disorder" in his speech. It may be said that there was disorder in Mayo when the tenants would not pay Lord Dillon's rents. The right hon. Gentleman says that the provisions of the Bill will be applied impartially. This is not the first time nor the twentieth that we have listened to declarations of that character. When the Act of 1881 was being adopted in this House, the late Mr. Forster, who, I venture to feel, was quite as much entitled to credence as the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, declared over and over again that the Act was not to be applied in Ireland, unless necessity required its application. But what happened? Before the Act had been in force for a month, it was applied in the City of Dublin for the purpose of arresting me. There was no disorder or crime there. It has never been pretended that there was agrarian disorder, because it could not be said that there was anybody who happened to hold farms in the City of Dublin. Dublin was utterly free from disorder of any kind. Nevertheless, Dublin was proclaimed for the sole object of arresting certain Members of Parliament. We know from experience when Acts of this kind are passed, that, notwithstanding the declarations of the Government at the time, the powers which such Acts give will be used unscrupulously by the Executive. The Chief Secretary has said that the provisions of the Bill will not be applied to any part of Ireland until there is such an amount of crime as to justify its application. Will the Chief Secretary take the trouble to look over the condition of Ireland, and say what are the districts in Ireland in which, at present, he considers there is a sufficient amount of crime to justify the application of such a measure at all? Is it not true that outside the Counties of Kerry, Clare, and Western Limerick absolute peace prevails in Ireland? I think we are in a position to make a tremendously strong case against taking away the liberties of the whole people of Ireland, and leaving them at the mercy of the Executive Government, because in a remote corner of the country there is a state of disorder. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend raises a most important issue. I think we have a right to protest test that because in a remote corner of the country there is a state of disorder we ought to take away the liberty of the whole nation. I have here the quarterly Returns of crime and outrage in Ireland for the last two quarters, and I find that in the Province of Ulster the crimes, leaving out of view threatening letters, were exactly six from September up to December. In the Province of Leinster, the largest and most populous Province in Ireland, the number of crimes for the winter quarter was eight in the whole Province. Is it not a monstrous thing that you should pass a Bill, which is to apply potentially to the whole of Ireland, when a condition of things exists as to absence from crime in regard to which you cannot find a parallel for years? In the Province of Connaught, in the same quarter, there were 29 crimes, excluding threatening letters; and, although that is not as favourable a condition of things as in Ulster and Leinster, it nevertheless shows an absence of crime which has been unparalleled for years. In those three Provinces there does not exist a shred of crime in justification for a measure like this, and yet the Government are proposing to place in the hands of the Executive of Ireland a power to apply this Bill to all those Provinces—to three-fourths of the population of Ireland, who have been free from crime for years past. I come now to the Province of Munster, and the condition of things there is this—In Munster, excluding threatening letters, there were 44 serious crimes; but, deducting the outrages in Kerry and Clare, there were about 13 in the whole Province. Those were the figures of the winter quarter. I come now to the quarter ending with March 31, and in reference to both quarters I contend that an unanswerable case exists for exemption from the provisions of a Bill like this. I think the Government are bound to stand up and show that some case exists for such a sweeping measure before they can hope to get the consent of the Committee to it. In other measures which have been passed by Parliament, the provisions of the Act have been confined to special districts in Ireland. Take the case of Westmeath. Disturbances had existed there; but did the Government seek to include the whole population of Ireland? Nothing of the sort. They showed that a bad condition of things prevailed in Westmeath, and they passed the Westmeath Act. Why should we not have now a Kerry and Clare Act? The last quarter's Returns show a slight increase, but a very trifling increase, over the previous quarter, which has not usually been the case, and which is, undoubtedly, to be attributed to the change in the policy of the Government in reference to Ireland. Instead of putting pressure on the landlords, as they did in the winter quarter, with excellent results, the Government entirely changed their policy, and the consequence was that there was a considerable increase in the number of evictions. In the Province of Ulster the number of serious crimes during the last three months was 10. When I call them "serious crimes" I ought to tell the Committee that many of them were of an absurdly trivial character. In the Province of Leinster there were 21, and when I look down the column of serious crimes included in this Return, I find that such crimes as murder, conspiracy to murder, firing at the person, and assaulting the police, are all absolutely blank. The crimes included in the Return are almost all of a trifling character, a good many of them consisting of injury to property. As the Government absolutely refuse to give us any information as to the nature of the crimes described under the head of injury to property, we can only conjecture that they are absolutely of the same character as the injury to property specified in the Blue Book of 1881. There is already standing on the Notice Paper a Motion for a Return of crime and outrages; but the Government have blocked it. In Leinster I cannot find that within the last three months there have been, more than seven or eight outrages of a serious character. In the Province of Connaught, during the same period, there were about 38; but several of the counties were absolutely free from serious crime. In the Province of Munster, outside the three counties I have already named, other than threatening letters, the outrages numbered 26. In the three counties of Kerry, Clare, and Limerick, they numbered 48; but if those three counties are eliminated from the Return I maintain that the condition of Ireland is such as not to afford a shadow or shred of excuse for this Bill. I contend that the Government are bound to act on the precedent of the Westmeath Act, and to confine the operation of their Bill, at any rate at this stage, to the three counties in which there does happen to have been this small modicum of excuse for it.

I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) will press this Amendment and force it upon the Government, or, possibly, we may have a repetition of what occurred under the Coercion Act of 1881. By that Act, certain districts were proclaimed in Ireland, where there was certainly not a sufficient amount of crime to warrant their being proclaimed at all. Districts were proclaimed then not for the purpose of putting down crime, but for the purpose of putting down political agitation. In the County of Wexford the Return of crime made in 1881 showed that there had been 56 outrages in that county, and upon that Return Mr. Forster had the county proclaimed; but it is an important fact that when the Return came to be analyzed it was found that, leaving threatening letters out, there were not more than eight or nine of what might be called crimes in the whole county. Nevertheless, that county was proclaimed, because the Government wanted to do then what they want to do now—not so much to put down crime or outrage, as to attack their political opponents and to put down political demonstrations. The Chief Secretary has mentioned crime and disorder. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by disorder? It does not take a vivid imagination to picture what may be considered disorder in the eyes of the Irish Executive and their officials. Disorder, in their eyes, may be the holding of political meetings, the delivery of political speeches, and the carrying on of the National movement generally. That is what the right hon. Gentleman means by disorder, and it is evidently what he is anxious to recognize by this Bill. That it is agitation he desires to put down is evident from the fact that he refuses to state to what district the Government propose to apply this Coercion Act in Ireland. I maintain that it is impossible for the Government to prove that there are more than two or three districts throughout the whole of Ireland where crime is in existence to such an extent as to warrant coercion, or the application of any exceptional law. Whatever hope the Government may have of inducing the people of this country to support them in coercing districts where crime unfortunately does prevail, I trust they will not have the sympathy of the country when they are endeavouring to put upon the whole of Ireland a severe and arbitrary measure of coercion which is not warranted by the existing state of crime. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend, said that while he could not accept the Amendment he would give an assurance that the Bill would be impartially administered. We, unfortunately, judging by the experience of the past, cannot accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, or of the Government of Ireland, as a sufficient guarantee that this Bill, if it is enacted for the whole country, will be impartially administered. I represent a district in the Province of Ulster which is most happily free from crime; but, still, it is a district where Orangeism extensively prevails, and out of the 84 magistrates of the county 82 of them are persons who, if not actually Orangemen, still are in distinct and avowed sympathy with the Orange Organization. I could give many other instances, and I hope, in the course of a few days, to put a question as to the administration of justice on the part of certain magistrates in the County of Fermanagh. I could cite instance after instance where, in the most flagrant possible manner, the magistrates have put justice altogether aside, and have given their decisions directly in sympathy with the spirit of the Orange Organization. Surely this is proof enough that it will be most outrageous, and even fatal, to place a Bill of this description in the hands of Resident Magistrates with Orange sympathies all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman has given us an assurance that this Bill will be used impartially in the Catholic districts of the South, and in the turbulent Orange districts in the North. A right hon. Gentleman who is not now a Member of this House, but who formerly held the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, wrote a letter a short time ago to the newspapers, in which, from the knowledge he obtained during the time he held the Office of Chief Secretary, he gives his opinion as to how this Bill will be used. He does not hesitate to express a strong opinion as to the character of the men who compose the Executive Government in Ireland, and who would practically have the sole administration of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman to whom I refer—Sir George Trevelyan—cannot be accused by hon. Members who sit on the other side of the House, and who represent Irish constituencies, of any desire to exaggerate the facts of the case. I would ask the Committee to look at this Amendment, not from the Irish Members' point of view; do not let them be influenced by what we say, but let them take the words of Sir George Trevelyan, who, with his practical experience of the Office of Chief Secretary and of the working of a Coercion Bill in Ireland, has given his testimony that it will be impossible for the Government to administer the Bill impartially among Orange partizans of such notoriety as the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman). These are some of the reasons which induce us to look with the greatest alarm and suspicion on the attempt of the Government to saddle the whole country with a Coercion Bill, and these are the reasons which have actuated my hon. and learned Friend in proposing this Amendment. We ask the Government to say distinctly, before the Bill leaves the House, to what districts of Ireland its provisions are to be applied, and to give some guarantee that Orange rowdyism and Orange crime will be put down in the North of Ireland, just as much as any crime which happens to be in existence in the South of Ireland. I cannot possibly conceive that a more reasonable request could be made by the Irish Representatives in this House than the request which they now make—that instead of saddling the whole of the country, which is admittedly free from crime, with this Coercion Bill, the Government, if they are intent on passing coercion at all, should content themselves with passing it upon those districts in the South and North of Ireland where, unfortunately, crime and outrage do prevail. As has been pointed out already, there has been more blood shed, more outrage, more lawlessness, and more real disorder in the Orange districts of the North of Ireland than in any number of districts in the South and West, and without the same provocation. If the Chief Secretary wishes to make the country believe that the Government are serious in their attempt to put down crime, he will rise in his place and say that they will rest satisfied with proclaiming those districts in which crime does prevail, and that they will not attempt to coerce or proclaim an entire country for the misdeeds of a few portions of that country. The Irish Representatives, whether Protestant or Catholic, protest against this infamous attempt to impose a law of this kind upon the people of all the constituencies; and I believe that if every Member representing an Irish constituency in this House were to protest in the same way against his constituents, who are free from crime, being coerced, he would only be discharging his duty towards the constituents who have sent him here to defend their liberties.

I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. HOLMES) that he might make a concession to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). The Attorney General is the person who will put the provisions of this Bill into operation, and he knows, if anybody knows, what the districts are in which it will be necessary to enforce the Act. He knows, if anybody knows, what the districts are, if this Bill had already become law, in which he would feel it his duty to give the Resident Magistrates the power of putting this 1st clause in motion. What I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should do now is that he should name or insert by name in the Bill these specific districts which he says require the operation of the Act, and that he should do so without prejudice to the general power of proclamation contained in the Bill. By doing so he would lose nothing whatever which the Bill proposes to give him; but he would enable the House to judge, from the list he would submit, how that impartiality which the Chief Secretary has promised in regard to the application of the Bill is likely to be exercised. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to name the places which he says require the application of such an Act, the House will then be able to see whether the list he gives is a fair and impartial list or not. If it is fairly impartial, the House will then be able to prognosticate the spirit and manner in which the Act is likely to be carried out.

The only reply which the Chief Secretary has vouchsafed to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) is that he has already explained the scope and spirit of the Bill. Now, as far as I can see, the scope and spirit of the Bill are aimed at crushing out the Nationalists, and allowing the Orangemen to do precisely as they like. An Orangeman may commit murder, but a Nationalist may not grin through a horse collar. The Chief Secretary has given a pledge that the Bill will be administered impartially; but by whom is it to be administered? It is to be administered by gentlemen who, if they wish to be so or not, cannot be impartial, so bound up are they with the Orange faction in Ireland. They have their feelings so strongly on the side of the Orange faction, that they cannot and will not be impartial. Who is to be the judge whether the Administration is impartial or not? They themselves, in a proclaimed district, are to be the judges of their own impartiality. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford claims that the Bill should be limited in its operation to those parts of Ireland where there is a certain amount of crime. You limit the Bill to Ireland; you do not apply it to the whole of the United Kingdom, and yet you are always telling us that there is no distinction between Ireland and the United Kingdom. Surely your reason for limiting the operation of the Bill to Ireland is because there is exceptional crime in existence there, and none in the United Kingdom. Therefore, you ought to limit the Bill to those parts of Ireland where you assert that exceptional crime prevails. The reason why I have risen now is this—whenever one of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench gets up and speaks upon the Bill, he always enlarges the scope of it. We were told that the Bill was directed against crime. We are now told that it is a Bill against crime and disorder. I always imagined that disorder could only be proved by the fact that there is crime; but the right hon. Gentleman implies that there is some distinction between crime and disorder. Before going further, I think we ought to understand from the right hon. Gentleman—I am sorry to disturb the sleep of the just in which he is indulging—but I think we ought clearly to understand what he means by disorder, irrespective of crime. We do not know under what conditions the district may be proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant. We had some idea that he might take a right or a wrong view; but we thought he would only proclaim a district where there was a considerable amount of crime. We are now told that he will not only proclaim a district where there is crime, but one in which there is only disorder. The vague distinction which has been used by the right hon. Gentleman is a most important one, and before we pass this clause we ought to understand clearly on what conditions, and on what conditions alone, Her Majesty's Government intend to use the provisions of the Bill.

I ask the indulgence of the Committee for a very few moments. I rise for the purpose of replying to the observations which have been made upon the Orange Organization and upon the City of Belfast by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). I think that the attack which has been made upon the City of Belfast by the hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to be allowed to be passed over in silence by anyone who has the honour of representing that constituency. The constituency which I represent has had nothing to do with any of the disturbances which have occurred in Belfast; but I cannot sit quietly here and hear the members of the Orange Society characterized as "blood-stained." I know we are accustomed to hear the Orange Organization calumniated.

Order, order! It would not be relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee to discuss the question of the Orange Organization.

I did not propose to discuss the Orange Organization at all, nor have I any desire to say anything further. I only wish to repudiate the calumnious charges which have been made against the Orange Society by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford and the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond). Having done so, I will now resume my seat.

I trust the Committee will appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman to protect the Orange Organization.

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether, having been called to Order myself, and having obeyed the ruling of the Chair, the hon. Member is regular in continuing the discussion?

The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee.

The object of the Amendment is to limit the application of the Bill to certain districts in Ireland. As representing one of the counties which come within the category of disturbed districts, I think I am taking a proper position when I invite the Government to name that county in the Bill in order that the causes of its disturbed condition may be investigated and, if possible, removed. I have no objection to see crime punished; but I think it is only justice to ask, concurrently with the Proclamation of a district and the punishment of crime, that the application of the provisions of this Bill should be limited to those districts where disturbance and disorder have prevailed. If Her Majesty's Government are desirous of getting at the root of the disorder in these disturbed districts, I think it will be found that it is attributable to the aggravated forms of injustice to which the tenants and others in those districts have been perpetually subjected. I thank the Chief Secretary for the word "disorder" which he has introduced into the discussion. It raises a new issue altogether, and I should like to know what meaning is attached, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government, to the use of that word "disorder?" We have from the beginning announced plainly, fairly, and above-board, that we have no objection to the Bill reaching crime in Ireland; but what we do object to is, that the Government should take a partizan and political view of what they are pleased to call "disorder," but which relates to transactions which it has been found necessary from time to time to resort to in order to prevent a worse and more general description of disorder. What we are afraid of is that the Government may direct the operations of their Bill towards that description of disorder, while they allow more serious forms of crime to escape scot-free. Hon. Members ought not to dismiss altogether from their minds the important facts brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as to the condition of the counties in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary asserts that there is a state of disorder and lawlessness. My hon. Friend showed that there has been scarcely a single crime committed from boundary to boundary during the time covered by the Chief Secretary's statement. There is no use in mincing the matter. I will, however, endeavour to keep within the observance of Parliamentary Forms; but we believe that, from the highest to the lowest, the public officials of Ireland are saturated with Orange prejudices and with landlord antipathies to the people, and that, consequently, there will be a scandalous maladministration of this Bill, which will not be limited at all in its evil effects by any assurance of impartiality that may given by the Chief Secretary. We place no value upon the right hon. Gentleman's assurances. His own mind may be of a more even character. Perhaps he is not so intimately associated with Orangemen and the landlord class in Ireland. Over and over again the same assurances have been given; but as long as Dublin Castle is Dublin Castle; so long as the Resident Magistrates get their instructions generally from Dublin Castle, stating the character of the persons they are to try, and virtually directing them what to do—so long as that system of government prevails in Ireland, it is in vain to depend upon any assurances, however sincere they may be at the time of their utterance in this House. I think there is now a distinct issue raised on this Amendment, and before we proceed further with the debate I think the Committee ought to insist upon some interpretation on the part of the Government of what meaning they attach to the word "disorder." Does the Chief Secretary mean to say that the County of Mayo is in a state of disorder, and that this Bill will be applied to that county? Is he unwilling to lay down a cast-iron rule that the Bill is only to apply to certain districts in Ireland? What we want to know from the Government is, whether they will tell us, taking Ireland as it is now, if the Bill were passed to-night, to what districts they would seek to apply it to-morrow? Surely that is not asking too much. The Government say they want to put down exceptional crimes—such as murder, firing into houses, mutilation of cattle, and Moonlighting. Are they of everyday occurrence in Ireland? If this Bill wore now passed; if all opposition ceased at once; if we grant to the Government the whole measure, will they tell us, in return, what the districts of Ireland are to which, in their present condition, they would apply the provisions of this Bill?

I think it is most important that we should have regard to the words we are discussing. The Amendment proposes to leave out the words "in a proclaimed district." But the speeches which have been made referring to those words have not made the matter at all clear. The words "in a proclaimed district," as they are applied in the section, have reference to where the offence is committed. On Friday the attention of the Government was called to the specific construction that might be placed on this phrase as limiting the clause to offences committed in a proclaimed district after the district has been proclaimed. I understood the Attorney General for England to say that if there were any doubt as to the meaning of these words the Government would look into the matter, and, if necessary, change them. The junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and others, also asserted that these words are meant to apply to offences committed in a proclaimed district after a district has been proclaimed under the Act. It has been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) that the words "in a proclaimed district" should be struck out, in order to insert the names of three counties. I quite agree that those words ought to be struck out, but not for the purpose of inserting the names of three counties. Such a course would prevent the provisions of the Bill from being applied to any other part of Ireland in the future except those three counties. It would be very bad legislation to put down the mischief and crime which may arise in three counties, and to leave all the rest of Ireland open to the operation of the National League. My objection to the words as they stand is, that they would limit the operation of the Bill to offences committed after the passing of the Bill, and after a district had been proclaimed. It has been clearly declared by the Government that the Bill is intended to apply to crimes which have already been committed, and offences which have already taken place, but which have not yet been discovered, and I understand that an inquiry is to be made into past offences as well as into future offences. Therefore, I take it that these words will have to be struck out, and I was in hopes that some Member of the Government would state how it is intended to correct what appears to me to be a verbal inaccuracy. I understand the phrase to mean that "where the Attorney General for Ireland believes that any offence to which this section applies has been committed." Then, taking out the words "in a proclaimed district," he may direct a Resident Magistrate to hold an inquiry under this section. If the clause were altered in that way, it would apply to every district now proclaimed, and to every district which may be proclaimed hereafter. It appears to me that we are really dealing with a verbal inaccuracy, and I think it would greatly facilitate the understanding of the discussion of this Bill if hon. Members would have a copy of the measure actually in their hands at the time the discussion is going on.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has devoted the greater part of his speech to an explanation of what everybody in the House understood. He objects to any limitation of the clause, and, no doubt, would prefer to see it very much extended. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has asked us to trust to the impartiality of the Executive in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. Now, we refuse to trust to the Government, or to their impartiality. We cannot do so. The Government is a Government of partizans, and the latest accession to the ranks of the Ministry shows that the Government are partizans, and also Orange partizans. The Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland is a member of every landlord organization in Ireland. He is a member of the Orange Society; he has advised the Orangemen of Ireland, in a remarkable speech, to keep their hands upon the trigger. I presume that the opportunity for doing so will arise under this Bill. At the present moment there is ample evidence in our hands that the Government now engaged in the administration of the law in Ireland is a landlord Government to the backbone and spinal marrow. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary tells us to trust to the impartiality of the Executive. What happened at the last Winter Assizes? In Sligo, when Catholic peasants evicted from the Clanricarde estates were indicted, not a single Catholic was placed upon the jury; but in Omagh no one but an Orangeman was set to try the Orange rioters of Belfast. It is an undoubted fact that the Government in the West of Ireland packed juries to convict Nationalist prisoners; whereas, in the North of Ireland, they refused not only to pack juries, but to exclude the most notorious and well-known partizans from the jury-box. Under such circumstances, to endeavour to induce us to believe in their impartiality is to endeavour to impose upon our credulity. Take, again, the attitude of the Government on the subject of Boycotting. When the Boycotting is committed in Ulster by Orangemen we do not hear a word about it. Take the case of the Rev. Mr. Macaulay—a Presbyterian Home Rule minister. Mr. Macaulay is a venerable man, who has done great service to religion in his district. He has not only been subjected to Boycotting, but has been subjected to outrage. His property has been destroyed by the action of Orange partizans; but the Government have refrained from condemning either the Boycotting or the outrage. Indeed, they have gone to the extent of refusing to post up in the police barracks of the country notices offering a reward for the discovery of the perpetrators of the outrage on his church. The reverend gentleman offered a reward himself; but this Government of impartiality, which denounces Boycotting in Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, which weeps bitter tears for imaginary cases of Boycotting like that of the midwife, has not a word to say as to the Boycotting, intimidation, and violence practised towards the Rev. Mr. Macaulay. How are we to trust a Government like that? There is another illustration I should like to bring under the notice of the Committee. We have heard within the last few weeks a good deal of condemnation of Irish juries, and of verdicts which they have either found or refrained from finding when the Crown have desired to secure a verdict of guilty. The jurymen have been held up as men who have wilfully disregarded their oaths; but we have not heard a word of a remarkable case which occurred a short time ago in the County of Fermanagh. In that case, some Orangemen were brought before a local Bench of Magistrates which was entirely composed of Orangemen. They were charged with firing with intent to kill at a body of Nationalists. Of course, in the view of Orangemen that is no crime at all, or next to none. Nevertheless, the Crown considered it so grievous an offence that they had the offenders brought before the local magistrates. The charge was completely proved, but the Orange magistrates sot the culprits scot-free, declaring that there was no stain upon their character. The Attorney General had this matter brought under his attention, and he himself deprecating the gross partizanship displayed by the local Bench of Magistrates, and directed a re-hearing of the case. The result, however, was the same, and the magistrates acquitted these men once more, although they were plainly guilty of a most heinous crime.

The hon. Gentleman is clearly wandering from the Question before the Committee in commenting upon the conduct of a local Bench of Magistrates.

I was trying to make good my charge against the Government that we can have no confidence in their impartiality.

The hon. Gentleman has himself pointed out, in the case to which he was referring, that the Attorney General for Ireland had acted impartially.

I was proceeding to remark, Sir, that, notwithstanding the action of the Attorney General, Her Majesty's Government took no further steps in the matter, but disregarded the plain duty they had to perform in the most disgraceful manner. They might, if they could have done nothing else, have dismissed those Justices from the Commission of the Peace, but they did absolutely nothing to mark their disapproval. I cannot understand the equity of an arrangement by which, no matter how heinous an Orange offence is, it goes altogether unpunished; whereas, for the commission of the most trivial offence, a Nationalist is severely punished. I refuse to trust to a Government of that kind. I assert that the Government is a Government of partizans from top to bottom. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is a member of the Orange Party. If there is anything Lord Londonderry understands, although I do not think he understands much, he comprehends the principles and rules of the Orange Society, of which, I believe, he is a Past Master. The Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland is a sworn member of the same Body, and he is convicted in this Blue Book—in the evidence given before the Cowper Commis- sion—of having robbed his tenants in the most disgraceful manner.

The hon. Member must not speak of a Member of this House in those terms.

Well, then, I would put the matter this way—that the Parliamentary Under Secretary has had his rents reduced by 54 per cent, and that he has been convicted by the Land Courts in Ireland of having fleeced his tenants to that extent; and, no doubt, he would have continued to got those iniquitous vents if the Land Court had not stepped in. I am not permitted to characterize conduct of this sort as I deem right, but I know what is said of it out-of-doors.

The hon. Member is clearly irrelevant. He is not referring to anything which attaches to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman as a Member of the Government.

I am referring to the antecedents of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I say we fully expect him to pursue in Office the policy which he has pursued when out of Office. I think it would be ridiculous to ask the people of Ireland, or any Member of the Irish Party, to regard other than as partizans in the highest degree a Government composed of such men as the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland.

I rise to Order. I want to know whether, upon the words "in a proclaimed district," the hon. Member is in order in entering into the conduct of individuals?

The Question, "in a proclaimed district," involves the use of the discretion of the Government. I understand that the hon. Member is speaking of the trust which ought to be reposed in the Government.

I am impugning the impartiality and bona fides of the professions of the Government. I maintain from its connections, and from its acts in this House and in the country, it will remain a partizan Government to the end, as it has been in the past. By a subsequent part of this Bill, the Lord Lieutenant is to proclaim districts in conjunction with the Irish Privy Council. I am told that the Judges do not take part in these administrative acts, although they are Members of the Privy Council; but that they put their signatures to Proclamations merely as a matter of form, being required to do so as Members of the Privy Council. But there are men in Ireland who do take an active part in the business. Who are they? Here, again, we come upon the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) who is a Member of the Privy Council. [Cries of "Order!"] I believe I am entitled to speak of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman by his name as a Member of the Privy Council. Then there is another Gentleman, Mr. Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh, the head of the I. L. P. U., and a man who also has had his rents cut down very considerably within the last few weeks. Then there is The O'Conor Don, another convicted rack-renter, who is not now a Member of this House, and, therefore, I may speak of him as I realty feel. These are the gentlemen who, acting in conjunction with Lord Londonderry, will have the power of putting the provisions of this Bill in force. I say that it is ridiculous and preposterous to expect, for a moment, impartiality from a Body of this kind, composed of Lord Londonderry, the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, who has had his rents reduced by 54 per cent, Mr. Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh, who has robbed his tenants time out of mind, and The O'Conor Don, who has done likewise. I therefore protest against giving to the Executive in Ireland any discretionary power whatever. We believe that the Bill will be used solely for landlord and Orange purposes; we believe that Orange outrages in Ulster, however heinous they may may be, will go unpunished, and that the slightest offences perpetrated in other parts of Ireland by persons supposed to be Nationalists, will be made the ground for applying to those districts this most atrocious Bill, which I hope the Liberals and Radicals of this country will do their best to stop before it proceeds further.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make a brief personal explanation. I have no desire to say anything in regard to the Bill on its clauses. The matter of my rents has been repeatedly called in question by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, and it is simply in order that the House may understand the real state of the case that I rise to make a few remarks. I have been accused of being a rack-renter. I think that the House knows generally what is the meaning of Griffith's valuation. That valuation was made in the year 1854, at a time when prices in Ireland were lower than they are now. It was avowedly made by Sir Richard Griffith 25 per cent below the letting value of the land—[Cries of "No!"]—and it was distinctly stated that it was made as a basis of rating, and not of rent. In 1881, a large body of my tenants came to me, and asked to have their rents reduced to Griffith's valuation. I was then able to point out to them what I wish now to point out to the House—that in 1881 the rents on a very large property were within £100 of Griffith's valuation, which, as I have stated, was 25 per cent below the letting value of the land, and I had no opportunity, even if I had desired it, afterwards of raising the rents. If, in 1881, I was able to show that my rents were 25 per cent below the letting value, I can hardly be called a rack-renter.

Are you an Orangeman?

I apprehend that, although the courtesy of the Committee has permitted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to make a personal explanation, I am not expected to say a word on the subject of that explanation, because it would be abusing the patience of the Committee to attempt to do so. But I desire to refer to the Motion under discussion, and likewise to one or two points which have arisen in that course of the debate—to the important suggestion which has been made, and the demands which have been preferred in the course of the debate. Now, with respect to the Amendment, I would venture to make this observation. The words in the clause are "in a proclaimed district," and I find that they occur again and again before any power to proclaim a district is given. That may, or may not be good drafting of a Bill, or it may have been better to have given power to proclaim before anything was said about a proclaimed district. It is, however, too late now to rearrange the clauses of the Bill; but I think it would not be satisfactory to the Committee to have a discussion of this nature raised again and again on the term "a proclaimed district" each time it arises. I would suggest whether it is convenient to proceed with the discussion on this basis. Assuming that this is a Bill which is to go through Committee, it is probable that there may be something in the nature of a power of proclaiming particular districts, and that the hon. and learned Member for North Longford himself recognizes. The words "in a proclaimed district" are in the nature of limiting words, and the simple omission of them would leave a power applicable to the whole of Ireland. Would it not, therefore, be best to leave the words "proclaimed district" at present, and when we come to the proclamation of districts in Clause 5, and the definition of the powers given to the Lord Lieutenant, then to raise the points which may be properly raised as to the conditions on which the Proclamation should take place? Other matters have occurred which I think require notice. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford has demanded from the Chief Secretary for Ireland to know whether Belfast is to be included in the proclaimed districts, and the right hon. Gentleman considered that he gave a sufficient answer when he said that all districts would be treated on a principle of perfect impartiality. I own that, after what has occurred, that answer is insufficient. The right hon. Gentleman himself has referred to particular parts of Ireland as being parts of Ireland the condition of which justified their inclusion in the present Bill. He described them, I think, as including one third of the area of Ireland, and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) said they included only one-sixth of the population. After that was done, and Clare, Kerry, and other counties had been pointed at as requiring the action of a Bill of this kind, it became perfectly lawful, regular, and legitimate to ask whether Belfast was in contemplation. The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) has, with great propriety, felt it to be his duty to say something on behalf of his constituents, and he has said what is to be regarded with credence, that the bulk of the people of Belfast regard the outrages in that town with horror. Is there not exactly the same thing in other districts? Are we not bound to make the same presumption with respect to persons who have not been guilty of crime and outrage in the districts which it is proposed to proclaim? If the apology is good for Belfast it is good for other places. Well, there is no doubt the conduct of certain persons in Belfast has stained the character of Ireland more than it has been stained by conduct in any other part of Ireland. Therefore, it is perfectly fair to ask what is the view the Government take of the case of Belfast. I shall never call this Bill a Bill for the repression of crime, for that is a most untrue description; but I suppose that crime is included in the purview of the Bill, and, if so, I think that hon. Gentlemen sitting for Irish constituencies are quite justified in pressing for some explanation as to the scope of the Bill, and what view the Government take of the state of things in Belfast—a state of things which, from recent accounts, has not oven yet reached its long wished for and right determination. Another point I wish to notice is the further explanation given by the Chief Secretary to-night of the scope of the Bill. It was a small Parliamentary incident which might not be noticed in any report of the debate, but which it is well to record. When the hon. and learned Member for North Long ford spoke of the Bill as a Bill for the repression of crime the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland called across the Table, enlarging that description, "crime and disorder." Now, that is a very important fact. We have heard that crime and offences are synonymous, to the great surprise of many persons in this House; but now we know from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman himself that he is not satisfied with the description which has been given of the Bill—that it is a measure for the repression of crime. We now know from his mouth that it is something else, which, although it may be bad and evil in itself, is not crime, but is, nevertheless, included in the scope of the Bill. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman can retract what he has said; but I wish to notice the words of the right hon. Gentleman as a full jus- tification for the protest which has been made. When the Bill was originally introduced there was a disputable proposition—namely, that the Bill was directed, not simply against crime, but that it did include something which is not now crime, and did aim at connecting it with offences with a view of establishing a certain state of things in Ireland. I accordingly support the demand that we should know what view the Government take in regard to the case of Belfast. I see the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) in his place. I see that he has defined the purpose of a Coercion Bill as a Bill only to be proposed in the case of exceptional crime and outrage. In Belfast there is, undoubtedly, exceptional crime and outrage—[Cries of "No!"]—and I think we ought to know whether occurrences such as these in Belfast are what are not within the purview of the Bill. We do not want to be answered by the reply, "we cannot tell whether this state of Belfast will be continued." There may be perfect tranquility in Belfast; but that is equally true of all the other parts of Ireland specially referred to. Therefore, I hope the Government will throw a little light upon the subject. I think that the general question intended to be raised by the Amendment certainly requires full discussion.

The suggestion the right hon. Gentleman has made as to the most convenient time for the Committee to discuss the question of the proclaimed districts is, I think, an admirable one; but he has greatly destroyed the value of that suggestion—that is to say, its practical value, for the purpose of bringing this discussion on, by raising two points which might easily be developed into points of great controversy, and lead to protracted discussion. I will venture, on one of those two points, to make a few remarks. The right hon. Gentleman found fault with the Chief Secretary for using and suggesting the word "disorder."

Adding it to crime.

; Yes; but, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has distinctly made himself a party to the insinuation which has been freely developed from below the Gangway, that the Government intend to apply this Bill to the South and South-West of Ireland, leaving Ulster free from the operation of the Bill. I wonder the right hon. Gentleman could not see that the use of the word "disorder" in connection with crime will bring Belfast under the operation of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has totally destroyed the value of the suspicion which he laid the Government open to by the attack he has made upon them for having added the word "disorder." There have been riots and disorder in Belfast—[Mr. CLANCY: Murder.]—there have been riots and disorder in Belfast, mostly of a serious character, and undoubtedly accompanied with loss of life—[Mr. CLANCY: Murder.]—accompanied by offences which may be regarded as murder; but the law has been asserted and vindicated in Belfast by Belfast juries.

Has anyone been hanged?

I say that law and order have been restored in Belfast, and a great number of the rioters have been brought to justice. Many persons have been convicted, and one of them who was accused of murder was convicted of the crime of manslaughter and sentenced, I think, to a number of years penal servitude. The son of the same man would have been convicted had it not been proved that he was innocent. These men were tried, and it cannot be asserted that they did not get a fair trial, nor can it be asserted in regard to the riots in Belfast that the ends of justice have been in any way defeated. The law has been asserted in Belfast as well as it could have been asserted in any other great town in the United Kingdom where popular passion and excitement run high. Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Loader of the Opposition seriously contended, and asked the Committee to believe, that there is no analogy whatever between the deplorable riots which have taken place in Belfast and the Moonlighting which have taken place in Kerry—Moonlighting outrages for the Commission of which not one single person has been made amenable.

That is not true.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assert that the juries in the North of Ireland have failed to do their duty in regard to the cases of disorder which have occurred in Belfast? [Cries of "Yes!"] Those cases are of a totally different character, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should gravely stand up and compare the diabolical outrages which have even been denounced by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in Kerry, Galway, Clare, and parts of Limerick and Cork with the riots in Belfast? Are they to be put on the same footing as the riots which constantly occur in Belfast, but which are invariably suppressed and put down, and which are invariably followed by the ends of justice being vindicated? It is a most deplorable thing that the right hon. Gentleman should use all his great influence, and his great abilities to confuse and mislead the Committee, and by pitting the diabolical outrages in the South against the Party riots in Belfast, that he should attempt to condone and apologize for such outrages.

The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, who has just sat down, very naturally feels some what sore on the subject of Belfast. Of course we have been told that "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right." I have not risen, however, for the purpose of entering into any historical incidents in the career of the noble Lord. I wished to correct him in regard to a matter of fact as to the way in which law and order are administered in Ireland. We have been told by the noble Lord that law and order have been as well administered in Belfast as in anywhere else throughout the whole world, and yet we remember that some 300 or 400 people have been maimed for life, 35 murdered, and that not one single person has been hung, and only some two or three have been punished. The noble Lord complains, and the same calumny has been repeated by a right hon. Gentleman in a region which is not easily accessible in this House—namely—the Islands of Orkney and Skye—the noble Lord complains that the murderers of the Curtins and others have not been brought to trial and punishment in Kerry. The Government allow these Lies and calumnies to go forth when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) at the present moment can jingle in his pocket the guineas which he got for convicting those persons. So far from that statement being true, I assert, as a matter of fact, that within the last six months whole batches—I believe to the number of 40—of the Kerry Moonlighters have been brought to trial, and 20 within my own knowledge were convicted at the last Winter Assizes. And yet, the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland says, that as far as he is aware, there has not been a single Moonlighter convicted in Kerry.

As far as I am aware, there has not been a single Moonlighter convicted in Kerry. It was only by changing the venue to the County of Cork that convictions were obtained.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman may mislead the Committee; but he cannot mislead me. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there was a change of venue. There was no change of venue at all. What happened was this. The ordinary law enables the Government to transfer the trials of certain persons at the Winter Assizes to certain places. I know the City of Cork jurors, and I say this, that persons who convicted these Moonlighters were Nationalists almost to a man. Furthermore, I declined brief after brief and refused to defend these men, although some of them may possibly have been innocent. No Nationalist member of the Irish Bar defended them, and they were convicted. These facts are as well known to the Government as they are to us. Furthermore, when a Conservative Administration was last in Office, Lord Salisbury boasted in the House of Lords of the success of the Government in these transactions. Lord Spencer retorted that it was by means of Winter Assizes, and Lord Salisbury replied "Yes; but it was by the ordinary law."

That was in 1885.

Yes; and in 1886 as well, and it was under the ordinary law. Contrast this with what has happened, on the other hand, in Ulster. The right hon. and learned Attorney General himself knows well that, as a matter of fact, he denounced the Tyrone juries, and said that they were worse than those of Kerry. I challenge him to contradict that statement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is always a straightforward and honourable opponent, and I observe that he does not contradict that assertion. What happened was this—the Walkers were put on their trial. There was no Winter Assize in Belfast; but, at the Tyrone Assizes, Judge Lawson, who, God knows, is no friend of ours, told the jury as plainly as possible that they were perjuring themselves, that they could not convict the prisoners of manslaughter, although they were willing to bring in a verdict to that extent, but that the offence was one of murder. Time after time the jury came back into Court; but they refused to convict, and then the Government transferred the trial back to Belfast—back to the scene of the labours of these prisoners on the Shanklin road. They did it in spite of the Report of the Commission which is contained in the Blue Book, and now before the House—a Commission presided over by one of the English Judges, supported by an Irish Queen's Counsel—Mr. Delapore Trench—and subscribed to by Mr. McHardy, a member of an Orange Society. That Report states—

"We are sorry to add that certain persona, Laving great influence in Belfast, thought proper, at various periods during the riots, to indulge in language, written and spoken, well calculated to maintain excitement at a time when all men of influence should have tried to assuage it. Mr. Cullen, the Divisional Magistrate of Ulster, and others, laid before us certain specimens of these utterances, some of which we print in Appendix D, and which speak for themselves. We feel it our duty to draw special attention to a letter of the 4th day of August, 1886, written by Mr. De Cobain, Member of Parliament for one of the Divisions of the town—a letter the publication of which the Mayor of Belfast most properly brought under the notice of the Government. Another cause of the continuance of the riots was the unhappy sympathy with which, at certain stages, the well-to-do classes of Protestants regarded the proceedings of the rioters. At one stage of the riots it seemed as if the greater part of the population of the Shankhill district united against the police. This is the more to be regretted, as it was on all sides admitted that no more valuable aid could have been given to the police than that afforded by respectable and influential people of the localities in which the troubles arose."

In illustration of this charge the Commission called special attention to a letter published by Mr. Do Cobain, winch was brought under the notice of Government; but, from that day to this, be attempt has been made to deal with the origin of these riots. It was with that Report staring them in the face that responsible and influential persons in Belfast sided with the rioters that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland sent these Walkers back to be tried in Belfast. He did so well knowing in his heart that these men would not be convicted, because they were Orangemen. I assert this as a fact—that no Orangeman in Ireland has ever yet been convicted on a trial for murder. I will give an instance to show the manner in which this particular trial was "rigged." The trial took place when Her Majesty's late Government were in Office, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) was Chief Secretary for Ireland. In the ordinary course, Mr. Walker, the Liberal Attorney General, and The M'Dermot, the Liberal Solicitor General, would have had the conduct of the trial, which ought to have gone naturally to the Summer Assizes. But the Liberal Government were likely to leave Office, and, therefore, it was arranged to have the prisoners returned for trial at a time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), would be the Law Officers of the Crown. Whereas, in the ordinary course, the trial would have been conducted by Mr. Walker and The M'Dermot; it was so arranged that the men were returned for trial at a time which was too late for the Summer Assizes in Belfast. If this fact is not within the knowledge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, I can assure him that it is notorious to the Bar of Ireland. Without the slightest necessity for that remand, the case was remanded so as to throw off the trial until the following Assizes. In moving my Amendment, I referred to the state of Derry. I presume that bribery and corruption will be an offence under this Act, seeing that is a misdemeanour. Now, the grossest bribery and corruption were proved to have prevailed in the City of Londonderry at the last General Election, when the hon. Baronet who now sits for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) was returned. It has been asserted that everyone connected with the candidature of the hon. Baronet, when the inquiry was about to take place, fled from Derry, and no summons could be served upon them. One or two of them were fortunately dragged up; but no person to my knowledge, although gross corruption was clearly established, has been prosecuted in connection with these charges, nor was even an attempt made to ascertain where these men were. The recognized agents of the hon. Baronet—the whole gang of them—were shown to be absolutely steeped in corruption; but not one of them has been punished. The Crown Prosecutor sat in Court mute, and yet the Election was given in favour of my my hon. Friend (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) on a single charge of bribery. Of course, my hon. Friend could have gained no advantage from continuing the investigation; but the whole burden of going on with it, and probing it to the bottom, rested with the Government. In Belfast the Government took a different course, and prosecuted an unfortunate cripple; but in Derry, where the bribery was of a most extensive character, every individual concerned in it got away absolutely unscathed. I have now explained the reasons why I have proposed this Amendment; but the moment I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W. H. Smith) suggest that it would come in bettor at a later period, I rose to offer to withdraw the Amendment. Of course, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) naturally desired to make an explanation and to continue the debate, and, therefore, I gave way. If the Government desire that the Amendment should be withdrawn, I have no objection to withdraw it; but I hope they will take advantage of the opportunity, in order to give the Committee some explanation in regard to the points which have been raised. For my own part, I accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and after this explanation I am quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.

The Committee will not be surprised, after the speech which has been delivered by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), that even at the risk of continuing the discussion for some little time longer, I should desire to say a few words. I will ask the permission of the Committee to commence my observations by an allusion to myself personally. It has been said more than once, in the course of this and other discussions, that I am an Orange partizan. I wish to assure the House, at the very commencement of my remarks, that there is probably no hon. Member of this House less connected in any way with Orangeism than I am. I am not an Orangeman, nor have I had any connection of any kind, either by family or otherwise, with that society. It so happens that, as I believe, I am not even personally acquainted with three Orange-men, save and except hon. Members of this House, some of whom, for aught I know, may be Orangemen.

What of Colonel King-Harman?

I may say, further, that in the course of my career I have often taken opportunity publicly to express my strong abhorrence of these party demonstrations, which, in my opinion, both on one side and the other, have been highly detrimental to the prosperity and happiness of the North of Ireland. I trust the Committee will excuse my having, under the circumstances, made this personal reference. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford has stated that it was by the operation of the ordinary law in the South of Ireland that the Kerry Moonlighters were brought to justice. I took the liberty of interrupting him, because the statement he made was not precisely in accordance with the facts. As far as my knowledge goes, there has not been a single instance, in the last three or four years, of a Kerry Moonlighter having been convicted in Kerry, No doubt, at the Winter Assizes in 1885, there was a large number of Kerry Moonlighters convicted in the City of Cork. The hon. and learned Member says that they were convicted under the provisions of the ordinary law, but the hon. and learned Member will bear in mind that that only arose from the circumstance of the offences having been committed at a particular season of the year, and, therefore, the trial was trans- ferred from one county to another. But I would ask, whether, if the Government is of opinion, from past experience, that it is necessary to have the venue changed from one county to another, they are not justified in asking the legislature to make an alteration in the law? Would not an alteration in the law be justified if under the present law a man who committed an offence in February or May got Scot free, whereas if the offence had been committed in September or October, he would probably have been convicted at the Winter Assizes? It is to meet this difficulty that the Government asked the House to enable a change of venue to be made.

To the Old Bailey.

In regard to the Winter Assizes, in the year 1886, the hon. Member for North Longford is wrong when he states that 40 Moonlighters were convicted in the City of Cork.

I did not say so—I said 20.

It is not for me to criticize the action of Cork juries, but I believe that there was nothing like an extensive conviction of Moonlighters at those Assizes.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee how many persons were tried, and how many were convicted?

I cannot go through the cases individually now. All I assert is that the number of Moonlighters convicted at the Cork Winter Assizes was very small. I now come to the observations which the hon. and learned Member has made in reference to the Belfast riots. In the first place, I may say that the hon. and learned Member is under a serious misapprehension as to the facts of the case. He says that not more than six or seven of the rioters were successfully prosecuted. I can inform the hon. and learned Member that by summary conviction more than 100 were brought to justice, and, at the Winter Assizes, about 66 were convicted and sentenced to heavy penalties. Therefore, it is a misrepresentation of the facts to say that only about six of the rioters were brought to justice. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to say that the results of this Winter Assizes at Tyrone were unsatisfactory, and that I myself declared that Tyrone juries were worse than Kerry juries. The hon. and learned Member seems to imagine that because I listened to that allegation and remained silent, that, therefore, I assented to it. Now, I always think that when an hon. Member is making a series of statements it is better to wait for a proper opportunity of reply instead of throwing out interjectional observations. Not only did I never make such a statement, but no such idea ever occurred to my mind. I have stated over and over again that the juries at the Tyrone Winter Assizes did their duty with wonderful fairness and impartiality. There were three serious cases of murder tried at the Tyrone Assizes. In one case—the case of a Catholic indicted for a wilful murder committed in Lurgan—there was no doubt whatever that the offence was wilful murder, but the question was whether the prisoner was the person who committed it or not. The charge was one of murdering a Protestant during an Orange demonstration. The Tyrone jury acquitted the prisoner.

Did the jury disagree with the Judge's charge? What was the name of the man?

It was the first case heard, and it was immediately before Donelly's case. Donelly was not tried for wilful murder at all. The case I refer to was a case of murder, and the sole question, as I have already stated, was whether the prisoner committed the murder or not.

The name of the prisoner was Hart.

I presume the hon. Member does not suppose that I have any intention to misrepresent the facts of the case. I was in Court myself, and it cannot be supposed that for a moment I would represent that the result of my case was different from what it actually was. As I have said, the verdict in that case was one of acquittal, the prisoner charged being a Catholic, and the charge being one of murder. The second case was that of the murder of Head Constable Gardner. What occurred in that case was this—the jury disagreed. I was under the impression when I read the depositions in connection with the case that there was a substantial case, but when I heard the evidence given in Court it seemed pretty clear to me that there had been a mistake on the part of the constable who identified the prisoner. This prisoner was subsequently acquitted, and one of the most distinguished judges on the Irish Bench—Lord Justice Fitzgibbon—on the second trial, which took place at Belfast, said that it was impossible for the jury to come to any other conclusion. That was one of the cases in which the jury disagreed at the Winter Assizes. The third case was the only case, as far as I am aware, which occurred at the Winter Assizes at Tyrone in which there was a failure of justice. It was the case of the elder Walker, who was indicted for the murder of a soldier named Hughes. The jury stated that they were willing to find a verdict of manslaughter, but they refused to find a verdict of murder. Now, I admit that in that case the jury ought to have found a verdict of murder on the admitted facts, and that was the only case tried at the Tyrone Assizes in which there was any failure of justice whatever. Catholic rioters were acquitted and convicted, and Protestant rioters were again and again convicted. I believe that more than 40 were convicted and sentenced to suffer punishment. I wish to impress these facts upon the Committee that in one or two cases where a Catholic was put upon his trial, and where there seemed hardly to be a doubt as to the proof of the offence, yet the jury yielded to the persuasion of counsel, and he was acquitted. Having read the informations that were laid against the prisoners, and all the depositions, I have had a full opportunity of knowing whether the juries did their duty or not, and I am sure that if the hon. and learned Member for North Longford had had the same advantage he would agree with me that the only single failure of justice during those trials, which extended over three weeks, was the case to which I have referred—namely the case in which the elder Walker was placed on his trial for murder, and in which the jury refused to convict him of anything but manslaughter. Although it has been charged against the Government that the Walkers were tried at Belfast, I can assure hon. Members that the honest desire was that they should not be tried there. But it was impossible to prevent it. I myself had a strong objection to that course being taken in consequence of the excitement under which the people of Belfast were labouring at the time. In face of the fact that on former occasions Belfast rioters were tried before Belfast juries, and that the juries did their duty, and that we could not make out a case under the existing law to induce the Court of Queen's Bench to change the venue, we came to the conclusion that it was impossible for the Crown to remove the case elsewhere. I admit, however, that if we had had in force an Act of Parliament such as we now ask the House to pass, the case would have been tried with a different venue. The charge is that the conduct of this prosecution was taken out of the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown under the Liberal Government by delay, and placed in the hands of the Law Officers of the present Government. But, Sir, if the prisoners had been returned for trial at Belfast it would have been absolutely necessary for the Law Officers to have had the case tried at Belfast at the time the riots were going on; and the Law Officers who represented the Government of that day did go down to Belfast for the purpose of conducting these and certain other cases—other cases connected with the riots which had previously been returned for trial. But what did they do? They applied to the Court that each of the cases should stand over to the Spring Assizes upon the ground that the excitement was such that it was impossible to get a fair trial. [Mr. CHANCE: The Court of Queen's Bench made the order, then.] But something more with reference to that—the Law Officers of the Crown, although they applied that the case should stand over to the Spring Assizes, did certainly not seem to be of opinion that when that excitement had cooled down the case could not be properly tried at Belfast. In one of the most serious cases they gave an undertaking that the man should be tried in the County of Down. It is right for me to say that, according to my recollection, justice was done in this case by a County Down Magistrate at the Spring Assizes. [Interruptions.] I always make it a rule, while hon. Gentlemen are speaking, to abstain from interrupting them, knowing that I have the right to reply to their statements afterwards. It is very difficult while interruptions take place for anyone but the speaker himself to hear what he is saying, and the effect of the interruptions which have unfortunately been made may be that the reply I have made on the charges of the hon. Gentleman has not been so clear to the minds of some as I desire that it should be. I have now gone through the case of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). Speaking in the hearing of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with whom it will rest, I say that if such a state of things as existed in the past existed in Belfast after the passing of this Act, the Government of the day would have no hesitation in applying the Act in Belfast in the same way as they would in Kerry. During the 18 months that I have been responsible for criminal prosecutions in Ireland, as far as I am aware, I have not shown the slightest difference as between one party and another. With regard to the action of the Bench of Magistrates in Fermanagh, I did in that case all that it was possible for mo to do. In the case of the man whom they would not return for trial, I took steps to have the case investigated a second time, and I regret to say that the result was the same; but my power ended there. The same thing occurred more than once in the South of Ireland, and I took the same course; but again with the same result. If we had had this Bill in force we should have got the persons charged summarily dealt with. But whether it be in Fermanagh or Kerry, I pledge myself that I will not make any difference between one party and another as long as I have this Act to administer.

The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that so far as he is concerned he will make no difference between parties. On Friday last he stated, and even boasted, that this Act would be retrospective. The Government will have the fullest power of investigation under this clause, and they have already stated that they are looking out for evidence with regard to the Belfast riots. I ask whether, with regard to the crimes committed in the district and which are undetected, the Government really intend to break up the Orange Organization and put it down. That is the subject and purport of my inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has confined himself to dealing with general matters, on which, of course, it is difficult to make any reply. But let me say that the action of the Tyrone juries as reported in the public Press, and described by Justice Lawson, has been of the most disgraceful character. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well in the case of the Donellys, who acted in defence of their own houses, that Justice Lawson charged for acquittal, that the jury refused to agree and the man was tried again; whereas, if the jury had done their duty, the men would have been acquitted. The right hon. Gentleman said he could have taken no other course than that which he took in Walker's case. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has only to go to the Court of Queen's Bench to get them to do all he wants. Am I to be told that the most servile and corrupt Court in Ireland—[Cries of "Order!" "Withdraw!"]

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he must not speak in that way of Courts of Justice. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]

I shall of course withdraw it in this House. When I leave the House I shall speak in the same way. I say that the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland has never refused any application on the part of the Crown. If the Crown makes a motion it is always granted.

I think I can say that my recollection is that out of five or six applications on behalf of the Crown the motion was refused in every case but one or two.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when those applications were made?

Twenty years ago.

I admit that it was so at that time. I am referring to the last seven or eight years, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a single instance where the Court of Queen's Bench has refused the motion of the Crown. The only case that I remember was in the case of the "Crown v. Boyd." That is the only instance which the right hon. Gentleman can give. I assert that there was a distinct connivance on the part of Her Majesty's Government to cause disorder at Belfast, and I will give as an instance the case of the Orangeman tried for the Monaghan murder, who was caught almost red handed in the act; who fired the shot, and who, because his mother got up and swore that he fired the revolver before he left the house, was acquitted. In Belfast you have no necessity to resort to the system of change of venue. You have there your juries ready to hand, and, therefore, Orangemen escape and Catholics are always convicted. We know that has always happened. We ask the Government, with the Report in the Blue Book staring them in the face, whether they intend to put down the Orange disorder in the North as they have stated they will do in the case of agrarian disorder in the South. That is the object of this debate, and I take it we are entitled to an answer on that point. The Government have refused pratically to give any information as to the districts to which this clause will be applied. I am, however, willing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) to postpone to a later day the exertion of pressure on that point.

I hope we may now consider that this episode, which, however important it may be, is hardly relevant to the question before the Committee—especially as the hon. Member has accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian—has terminated. The hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment having accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—that the debate should be raised on a later stage of the Bill, I presume that, in doing so, he speaks for those Gentlemen who are sitting near him. I do not intend to reply to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian as I should certainly have done had I followed him in debate, except in a very few words. There is no intention on the part of the Government, and there is no power, to extend the meaning of the Bill beyond the words which are laid down within its four corners. The reason why I used the word "disorder" was because it appeared to me at the time that which would best convey my meaning to the House. There are many Members who talk as if Boycotting and intimidation were not crimes. To say to them that the Bill only dealt with crime would, therefore, have been misleading. No one can maintain that they do not constitute disorder; and this is why I added that word to my description of the objects of the measure.

So far as Members on these Benches are concerned the Amendment has been withdrawn. The discussion which has arisen, as far as I can judge, is entirely owing to the action of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill).

The Government ask for this power with reference to crime in Ireland because they allege that evidence with regard to the Commission of crime is, for some reason or other, withheld. Now, I am of opinion that before you give power to the Attorney General to institute the inquiry provided for by the section, he should be satisfied, in the words of the Amendment I am about to move, that, "Owing to intimidation, or other improper cause, evidence in connection with such offence had been withheld." We say that before this power is given, granting the inquiry to be necessary, we should have some guarantee that the machinery placed in the hands of the officials shall not be abused to the harm of individuals. There can be no doubt that an Act of Parliament should be put into words which the Government think clearly embody their meaning, and, therefore, if they have no wish to cause harm to individuals, but only to reach cases where evidence is withheld through intimidation, they can have no objection to the insertion of these words. All we ask is that in the clause it shall be provided that the Attorney General shall not have power to sot the provision in motion unless he has satisfied himself that proof exists which makes it necessary to institute the inquiry. The clause is not limited to any class of crimes, it includes all; but we know that a multitude of the cases of ordinary crimes arise as distinct from agrarian crime. No one contends, in those cases, that there is any indisposition to come forward and give evidence, and no one has implied that it exists; and, on the other hand, it has been admitted that the Attorney General should not be able to order inquiry unless he has proof that it ought to be held for the reason assigned. For these reasons, I hope the Government will accept the very reasonable Amendment which I now beg to move.

I can, in a few words, state why it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment. I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman remembers that on Friday night we agreed to insert words providing that a sworn information shall be made before the Attorney General for Ireland takes action under the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman wishes us to say now that the Attorney General shall not act unless he is satisfied that, owing to intimidation or other improper cause, information has been withheld. It amounts to this, that however impossible it may be to obtain evidence, the Attorney General would not be able to act unless he had some evidence before him. The provision with regard to the sworn information will operate as a sufficient safeguard against the powers of the clause being applied where intimidation does not exist. We certainly cannot, for these reasons, assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork.

All my Amendment asks is that the information contain a sworn statement that evidence has been withheld through intimidation or other improper cause. It would not be exceedingly unreasonable that before the Attorney General for Ireland could institute an inquiry under the section he should hold a preliminary inquiry. What my Amendment provides is that the Attorney General shall be satisfied, not merely that the offence has been committed, but that a state of things has arisen such as the Government admit to be an indispensable preliminary to the proper use of the powers contained in this clause—that the information which sets the Attorney General in motion shall not merely contain a verification of the fact that an offence has been committed, but shall also contain an allega- tion made on the sworn testimony of some person on whom he can rely as to the state of things in the district—that owing to intimidation evidence cannot be obtained.

It is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment, seeing that it has already been provided that the Attorney General is only to take action under the provisions of the Bill in cases where an. information has been sworn, which will operate as a sufficient safeguard against those provisions being extended to places where intimidation does not exist.

I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has done full justice to the arguments advanced in favour of this Amendment or to the Amendment itself. The Government do not propose, as I understand, that this is to be a provision which is to be put in operation in every case. They propose it as a provision which they say is necessary on account of several difficulties which are specified. The difficulties are alleged to be in getting evidence on account of people being intimidated, and the Amendment proposes that instead of this being a clause which might, if the Attorney General for Ireland gets a sworn information, apply generally, it shall be restricted to a class of specified cases in regard to which there has been a failure to get evidence. That, I understand, is the argument in support of the Amendment; and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General endeavoured to meet that by saying this is not workable at all, and is not necessary, because the clause provides, by the Amendment to which the Government agree, that there shall be sworn information. That is no answer to the objection made, and which this Amendment puts forward— namely, that this sworn information should disclose something more than the commission of an offence, and that all the clause provides is that there shall be a sworn information to the effect that an offence has been committed to which this section applies. Now the section applies, not merely to offences punishable under this Act specifically, but it applies also to felonies and misdemeanours, which means all felonies, and all misdemeanours, and all offences under this Act, If the sworn information, according to the provision of the section, disclosed the existence of those special grounds upon which this particular clause is to operate, and which will be put forward as justification, that would be another matter; but it does nothing of the kind. The sworn information, according to the provision as it now stands and specifies, need not contain anything to show that there are any exceptional circumstances whatever within the district proclaimed which prevent evidence being obtained—which shows that intimidation or anything else prevails to prevent evidence being forthcoming. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has not quite met that contention. I quite agree with the criticism he made upon the wording of the Amendment itself; it would be better if the Amendment ran—"Owing to intimidation or other causes evidence in connection with such offences is not forthcoming."

Mr. Courtney, I want to say a few more words upon this Amendment. It is well the Committee should understand exactly the view the Government take. This clause is to apply to proclaimed districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has referred to-night to the fact that we may have to discuss what districts shall be proclaimed. Her Majesty's Government will not proclaim any district without cause; they will not proclaim a district unless there are circumstances which make it right for such an inquiry to be held into the terrorism under which the people are living. Therefore, the fact that the clause is limited to a proclaimed district in itself implies that there is a state of circumstances under which it is desirable an inquiry should be held. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney says that, in addition to that, there should be something like a statement, with the sanction of an oath, that there is intimidation or some other improper cause which prevents evidence in connection with particular offences being forthcoming. In our view, it would not be a right precaution or safeguard to throw around this remedial measure which we think most desirable. I do not want to go now into cases in which these inquiries have been held, and held with advantage to the public in the past; but we certainly do think that, once a district is proclaimed, once the responsible Government has said the condition of a district is such that it ought to be proclaimed, and that this section ought to apply, the discretion should be left to the Executive, to the Attorney General for Ireland, subject only to this precaution—that he shall, before putting the section into operation, be satisfied, on sworn information, that an offence has been committed. The Government cannot agree to the Amendment, nor can we agree to the substance of it, because we consider it would unduly limit the power of the Executive which is responsible for proclaiming the district.

It is needless for me to say that we cannot admit the validity of the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster). The case the hon. and learned Gentleman has made against the Amendment is simply this. No district will be proclaimed until the Executive Government has come to the conclusion that a state of general terrorism exists in the district. Then the hon. and learned Attorney General maintained that if terrorism does exist in a district, it is reasonable that the Executive power should abandon the ordinary law and resort to extreme powers such as those contained in this Bill. There is a certain lameness in that argument, because the hon. and learned Attorney General would have us believe that, because there is general intimidation in a district, there is general sympathy with every form of crime in the district. Greatly as Conservative Members of this House have maligned Ireland, I do not think any one of them will say that every description of crime is considered lightly in Ireland. I think that the real reason why the Government should, in the pursuance of their present policy, decline to accept this Amendment is a very simple one indeed. They desire to use this weapon, not as a weapon to obtain evidence in cases where it has been withheld, or where it has not been forthcoming, but as a weapon to persecute people in Ireland at the bidding of any Member of the Privy Council, or, what is equivalent, any landlord member of the Constitutional Club. Although they could find plenty of land agents, and others who would be willing to swear anything, they decline to put the tender consciences of these individuals to the test of showing that there is some difficulty in obtaining evidence. The Government desire, on the mere allegation that a crime has been committed in a district, to put this section into force. Under this section as it stands, it will be perfectly competent for the Attorney General for Ireland, on receiving sworn information that an offence has been committed, to order an inquiry, to drag up men even from outside the district, and, if they refuse to answer any question put to them, run them into gaol. I think this Amendment is extremely reasonable. The foundation of this section is that evidence is not forth coming. We have heard a great deal of the good intentions of the Government; but when they are asked to embody their good intentions in the Bill they refuse. I am forced to the opinion that they intend to use this section at the bidding of any landlord in any district to torture, imprison, and ruin the people.

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) is a little astray in thinking that this clause is applied to witnesses in proclaimed districts only. That is not so. A witness may be summoned from outside a proclaimed district, if the district in which he resides adjoins any county, part of which is proclaimed. A little area may be proclaimed, and three or four counties may abut upon it. This is a witness's section, putting witnesses to very serious inconvenience, and I think I may fairly say to real torture. It is their case which is to be considered, and not the case of criminals. If the hon. and learned Attorney General really does mean to confine the operation of the section to witnesses in a proclaimed district, it will be absolutely necessary that the section should undergo some alteration. Now, if the Government think that they cannot get men to give a formal opinion, that evidence is not forthcoming on account of the intimidation which prevails, they are grievously mistaken as to the quality of the men they have supporting them in Ireland. They will have no such difficulty. But if this Amendment is accepted, there will be a chance of some one amongst the Government's supporters being honest enough not to swear up to the mark. I am well acquainted with what the effect in many cases of similar provisions to this is, and I do say that unless some precaution of this sort is taken, the same thing which occurred to my knowledge tinder the Crimes Act will occur again. If the Government do not accept some Amendment, confining in some way the operation of this section, undoubtedly it will be made the vehicle of very considerable oppression. I did not rise to detain the Committee at any length; but I thought it necessary to point out that this is a witness's clause, that it is the case of witnesses that is to be considered, and that the hon. and learned Attorney General for England is quite mistaken if he thinks witnesses are protected by the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant.

I venture to think that, so far, the Government have not appreciated the immense importance of this Amendment. We have already seen, from the discussion, that the clause has been drafted in great haste and with a very great want of care. It is rather curious that, in an important Bill of this kind, such blunders should have been committed in the first few lines, occasioning, as they do, greater discussion in the Committee. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has already admitted the faultiness of the clause by accepting the Amendment as to sworn information. The Amendment now proposed does not carry the safeguard very much further, but its adoption will make people feel safer. The object of having a sworn information was to prevent an abuse of this very extraordinary provision, and I cannot conceive any Criminal Law which ought to be surrounded with greater safeguards than this. This clause simply amounts to the introduction into the Irish Criminal Law of the Inquisition. It is the first time that it has been introduced permanently into that law. I should like to hear what the hon. and learned Attorney General would say, if it were to be proposed to introduce permanently such an Inquisition into the Criminal Law of this country. What is it that is demanded? It is proposed, and I think most reasonably proposed, that not only should there be a sworn information, but that there should be some inquiry made beforehand—before the sworn information is laid—that there is difficulty in getting evidence. We have not had any information from the Government as to the cases in which similar power, under the Act of 1882, was put into execution. The great danger of a clause of this kind is that it may be used for purposes other than the detection of crime. I can well imagine some unscrupulous official—however guarded you are, it is impossible not to have such people about you—using this power with the greatest cruelty. Now, what were the cases in which inquiries took place under the Act of 1882? We have been told that inquiries took place in 119 cases. I asked in how many cases the inquiries were held after examination? That is a most pertinent inquiry from the very point of view of this Amendment. We are entirely left in the dark on that subject. I think that if an answer had been given, we should have found that out of these 119 cases, probably half of them never ought to have been investigated. I suppose the discussion of this Amendment will take up some time, and that presently the Government will say we are obstructing the Committee. But I cannot understand any more important Amendment being proposed than this, and I cannot understand any Government who have really at heart the introduction of a measure which shall be an improvement to the Criminal Law not desiring that a provision of this kind shall be as little harsh and as little distasteful as possible. I think it is the duty of the Committee to insist upon this Amendment.

I really think that this is one of the points upon which the Government might very well have met the proposals that have been made from this side of the House. I cannot think that the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has fully answered the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). First of all, the hon. and learned Attorney General says that if a district is proclaimed, it follows, as a matter of course, that this power should come into operation. In answer to that, you say that it is not at all a necessary consequence, that there may be reasons quite apart from the difficulty of obtaining evidence which might lead to the proclamation of a district. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has already, this afternoon, told us that with reference to the Kerry Moonlighters he had no difficulty whatever in obtaining evidence and convictions. The men were tried at Cork. Well, but you might have proclaimed both Kerry and Cork, and yet you would have had no difficulty in obtaining the conviction of the men. There is another thing the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has not remarked. He spoke as if this clause only operates in the proclaimed district. That is not so. The moment you have got a district proclaimed, and the offence sworn to upon information, you may force every man in Ireland to attend to give evidence—under this clause upon the mere suggestion that a man belonging to Antrim, Tyrone, Dublin, or elsewhere, knows something about what has happened in Kerry, you may subject him to this exceptional form of examination. The hon. and learned Attorney General has made no observation in answer to that point; therefore, it is quite plain that the operation of this clause is a far wider one than that of the mere proclaimed district. In point of fact, every man in Ireland is subjected to the operation of the clause. It is quite obvious that this is not a small question, but a very large question. What objection can there be to meeting hon. Members in this matter? I am quite certain that if this clause referred to England, we should not feel the difficulty about it we do now. We know very well that in England this clause would not be put into operation unless there were some very strong reasons for it, and that there would be confidence in the administration of the clause. We know that, justly or unjustly, that feel- ing, generally speaking, would not exist in the greater part of Ireland; therefore, it is necessary to give satisfaction to all reasonable demands. Let me ask what is demanded? You are asked, first of all, that a sworn information should be made as to the crime. The Government admit that—a very proper admission. Well, what objection can you have, having that sworn information, that it should be sworn that you cannot get evidence? You have plenty of people at your command. Having admitted there should be sworn information as to crime, why should you object to having sworn information that a state of things exists which makes it impossible to got evidence without resorting to this section? You cannot, it seems to me, by the adoption of this Amendment impede seriously the administration of justice; whereas, on the contrary, it will give an appearance, at all events, which will satisfy people that this clause, stringent as it is, will not be applied unless there is particular reason for its application. The present proposal seems to be so reasonable that I cannot understand the objection of the Government to accept it.

Mr. Courtney, it certainly is difficult to speak in moderate language when one has to deal with the class of observations the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) favours the House with when criticizing the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. I have not the slightest objection to meeting fair criticism in the House, and I am perfectly willing, if I am wrong, to admit I am wrong, or if I feel I have put forward something I cannot support, to say so at once. I have been very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has for years been known, not only to this House, but to England and the world, as a great jurist, who has been a Law Officer of the Crown, who for many years practised the science of the law, should put such arguments before us as he has done during the course of these debates. I do not want to refer to matters that have gone before, on the second reading of the Bill, although I may have to do so on some future stage of the debate; but we heard a great many arguments on Friday last from the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the distinction be- tween the word "offence" and the word "crime," which were answered conclusively by Ms own Bill of 1882 and by the Preamble of the Bill of 1882.

Will you read that?

I will with the very greatest pleasure. I will accept the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. He told us the other night there was a broad distinction between "offence" and "crime"—that "offence" was a mild offence.

The discussion is now travelling very wide of the Amendment.

I am sorry, Sir, that I somewhat irregularly accepted the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. I must go into the question on another occasion. I will now deal with what he has said to-night on this particular Amendment. He has suggested that, in respect to this clause, there should be some such precaution set round the action of the Attorney General as that there should be a sworn statement that, owing to intimidation, or some other cause, evidence is not forthcoming. I wonder whether he remembers the section of his own Bill? Was there, in the Bill of 1882, any precaution of this kind? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No.] The right hon. Gentleman says "no." Why did he not say so when he was addressing the Committee? Why did he not tell the Committee what was the distinction between 1882 and the present time?

I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman. The distinction between 1882 and the present time is the difference between the condition of Ireland at that time and now. [Cheers.]

Sir, it is most extraordinary the right hon. Gentleman should think that can pass muster in this House. I am not dealing with the applause which comes from below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman's point is that, although in a particular proclaimed district you cannot get evidence, in some other parts of Ireland you can get evidence with perfect ease, and that, therefore, you ought to put some safeguard round the person who has to put the Act in force. Our clause is certainly justified by the 16th section of the Bill of 1882. By that section there was exactly similar power given to the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. Although I have no objection to the right hon. Gentleman swallowing his own words as often as he likes, I think that when he attacks this Bill and those who have framed this Bill, and when he insists upon precautions being inserted in this clause, he should, at least, tell us why precautions are required now and why they were not required in 1882. That is not all. Has England ever been proclaimed? Has it ever been necessary to bring in a Crimes Bill for England? Yet, what did the right hon. Gentleman do in the Explosives Bill of 1883—a year later? I do not suppose he remembers it—at any rate, it is very convenient to be able to forget all your own legislation, all your own speeches, all your own arguments, when what you wish to do is to make a Party opposition. I have noticed as a most curious thing that the right hon. Gentleman quotes everybody except himself, and yet there is nobody who has made more powerful speeches on these and kindred subjects than the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going to read the section, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman, and I inform the House, that in the Explosives Act of 1883 there was a section of a much more stringent character than that under discussion, for it said that in every part of the United Kingdom, without affidavit, without any person being charged, without a search warrant being obtained, or anything else, an inquiry of this kind may be set on foot. Neither the Bill of 1882 nor the Act of 1883 made provision for sworn information at all.

The Act of 1882 does.

I am obliged for the correction. The Act of 1882 does, but the Explosives Act of 1883 does not. Of course I cannot hope to convince right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who are of the character of mind possessed and enjoyed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby; but, at any rate, when we are looking at this clause, and to the proviso that it is thought desirable to enact, I think we may fairly appeal to the House not to go back to a second reading discussion of this Bill. It is idle to suggest that the difference between this clause and the Act of 1882 is to be found in the condition of Ireland now and the condition of Ireland then. Once given that the Preamble of the Act of 1882 was proved, then Clause 16 of that Act becomes a proper clause—once given that the Preamble of this Bill is proved, then this clause that we are discussing is proved. All I can say is, that willing as I am, and willing as Her Majesty's Government are to consider fairly suggestions for carrying out the Preamble of this Bill, we do object to Amendments being made, supported by right lion. Gentlemen opposite, which are totally at variance with the principles of the Bill, and at variance with the principles which he has accepted in measures of his own. I must say we are driven to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to facilitate the debate when he makes speeches like that which we heard from him just now.

We are only at the beginning of what will be a long discussion in Committee; and I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) who, as we all know, is a very amiable man, should lose his temper, as it will prevent the Bill being discussed in a fair and judicial spirit. I must say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) spoke in a very calm manner, and without making any attack or any offensive observations upon anyone. He gave his reasons, which appeared to mo to be very solid reasons, in support of this Amendment in a very temperate way, and his reasons wore well worthy of consideration. If they are answered, they should be answered in the spirit in which they were delivered. The hon. and learned Attorney General, in answering the arguments of my right hon. Friend—if answer it can be called, because his style of meeting the case is worn threadbare—has referred to the Act of 1882. Well, as far as I am individually concerned, I disapproved of the Act of 1882, and I voted against it, and spoke against it, just as I am voting and speaking against this Bill; but my right hon. Friend near me was well founded in calling attention to the different state of things that existed in Ireland then, though I do not think his observations justified the measure passed in that year. But to meet this argument my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General says, that once it is granted upon the second reading that the principle of a Bill is proved, then the necessity for the provisions of that Bill follows the proof of that Preamble. He says this is the case in regard to the Bill of 1882—so he says that the Preamble of the Bill now under discussion is proved, the proving of the provisions of the Bill also follows. But my hon. and learned Friend fails to see a marked distinction between the two cases. There was a Preamble to the Act of 1882, and it was—

"That whereas by reason of the action of secret societies and combinations for illegal purposes in Ireland, the operation of the ordinary law has become insufficient for the repression and prevention of crime, and it is expedient to make further provision, &c."

Well, I turn to the Bill which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General regards, I presume, with something like parental fondness. What is its Preamble? Where is it to be found? It is not to be found; there is no Preamble at all. This is the title of the Bill—

"A Bill to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of crime in Ireland, and for other purposes relating thereto;"

and straightway it goes on to the enacting part. There is no Preamble whatever. I would call the hon. and learned Attorney General's attention to another distinction between the Act of 1882 and the Bill under discussion. In the first place the Act of 1882 was not proposed to be incorporated in the permanent general Criminal Law of the country. It was avowed as a temporary measure, as legislation to meet a temporary condition of things. That Bill was put forward to meet an exceptional case, but the present Bill of the Government is part of what is to be their permanent policy for the management of the affairs of Ireland. It is not put forward as necessary to meet a sudden emergency, to grapple with some exceptional outbreak of crime. The measure is not resorted to as a "hateful expedient," because it could not be avoided in the nature of things; but it is to be regarded for the future as part of the Tory policy for the government of Ireland. There is another point in the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General to which I would like to refer. Clause 16 of the Act of 1882 expressly excluded from its operation a subject which this Bill relates to, and which will be found, as we contend, liable to great abuse. Under the 16th section of the Act of 1882, all matters relating to illegal assemblies were excluded.

No, no!

Section 16 provided that where a sworn information had been made that an offence had been committed, any magistrate could summon a person to appear before him, though no one was charged with the offence. If my hon. and learned Friend will look at the 1st sub-section of that Section 16, in the Act of 1882, he will find that an offence for the purpose of that section means—

"Any felony or misdemeanour, and also any offence against this Act, with the exception of the offences specified in Sections 10 and 11."

Now, the offence specified in Section 10 is the ease of illegal meetings; while Section 11 deals with the question of the arrest of persons found out at night under suspicious circumstances.

Section 10 deals with meetings prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant as being dangerous to the public peace and safety. Section 8, Sub-section 1, makes it an offence to take part in any riot or unlawful assembly.

I did not say that riot was not within the provisions of that Act.

You said unlawful assembly was excluded.

I gave references to Sections 10 and 11; but perhaps I ought to have said illegal meetings. I thought I had said so, and I think I did. So much for the answer, or rather the attempted answer, of my hon. and learned Friend opposite to the speech of my right hon. Friend near me. I do not think the attempt was at all a successful one. My right hon. Friend says that it would be possible under this section, unless some safeguard is introduced such as is contemplated in this Amendment, to summon persons from any part of Ireland for the purpose of giving evidence with reference to a crime committed in any other part of Ireland; and it is not too much to say that this exceptional power, which even the Government themselves have not sought to justify, except by reference to special circumstances which prevent evidence being forthcoming on the ground of intimidation, ought to be safeguarded by showing the existence of these causes as justification for the provision. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General complains of the opposition to this Bill, and seems to insinuate, without stating it, that this Amendment is of an obstructive character; I deny that it is obstructive; but I do not hesitate to say that I look upon this Bill as mainly and essentially a bad Bill, and that I think it will work mischief; and, thinking that, I feel I should fail in what I consider to be my duty if I did not, so far as I could, resist it and where unsuccessful in resistance endeavour, to the best of my power, to get safeguards introduced into it.

I rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy). I do so because this clause, like the whole of this detestable Bill—which is more detestable to hon. Members for Ireland than it can be to anyone else—provides for what I may call a Star Chamber examination of the people in Ireland. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), I may say that he is setting a very bad example to Irishmen here by falling into a temper without provocation. If there are men in any section or quarter of this House who ought to be excused for getting into a temper on this Bill, or who have reason on their side for getting into a temper over this Bill, it certainly should be, to my mind, the Representatives of the people of Ireland. I would, therefore, advise the hon. and learned Gentleman not to give way to that restiveness under criticism of this Bill, and not to copy the style of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when dealing with matters affecting Ireland. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork simply provides that no person shall be arrested and brought before this inquisition unless there is sworn information to the effect that this is the only way of getting evidence to convict. But the Government mean by this secret inquiry—and they cannot get out of the situation in any other way—that there is intimidation abroad in the district that prevents evidence of the offences being given and causes evidence to be withheld. All the Amendment asks is that a clause might be inserted, or a line might be inserted, in the Bill providing that before men are brought into this Star Chamber to be examined on whatever matter the magistrate likes—it shall be proved before this action is taken that there is intimidation in the district with regard to the crime upon which the person is called upon to give evidence. I do not think anything more reasonable could be proposed in this House. The refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment, to my mind, will be interpreted by the Irish people into a belief that the Government do not want so much to inquire about crime in these secret courts of inquiry in particular places in Ireland, but that they want to have power to examine in secret men of all kinds and descriptions on whatever subjects they may be interested in, or with regard to any matter which the landlords of the district may be interested in. I can conceive nothing more likely than that, in a district where some sort of offence has occurred, men in that neighbourhood for their own purposes trying to get evidence upon a certain matter, will accuse a number of leading politicians in the place and have them brought before the secret court or inquisition, and have them questioned on matters concerning the relations of landlords and tenants. The Bill may be also used in this way. The local landlords and the local magnates may find political agitation in their district very unpleasant, and they in conjunction with the Castle Authorities may wish to get their opponents out of the way.

The hon. Gentleman is discoursing at large. He must confine himself to the principle of the Amendment before the Committee.

What I was endeavouring to do was to show that if the safeguard contained in the Amendment is not accepted it may be possible for the Government Authorities to have men brought before these secret courts of inquiry on the pretence of their having some knowledge of crime in the neighbourhood, but in reality for the purpose of extracting information on subjects of quite a different nature—information on matters concerning the interests of the landlords. We know what has been done in Ireland, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend, as I take it, is framed for the purpose of providing that no person shall be called before the secret court of inquiry except persons likely to give evidence in regard to crime, and who would not otherwise give evidence. Now, I do not see why—

The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have comprehended the Amendment, to which he is not speaking. The Amendment requires that "it shall be stated that owing to intimidation or other improper cause evidence is not forthcoming."

I should wish, Sir, to be in Order, and what I was trying to argue when you interrupted me was that as the Amendment provides that there shall be evidence to prove that evidence cannot be got with regard to an offence in consequence of intimidation. This Amendment is only a safeguard that the court of inquiry will only be called into requisition in cases where it is absolutely clear that the usual mode of getting evidence has failed, or is not available. I do not think that it is at all unreasonable that the Government, before they seek to get evidence in this demoralizing way, in this unconstitutional manner, shall be required to have exhausted all other legitimate methods of getting evidence, and that they shall be in a position to prove before calling this Star Chamber method into play, that it is not possible to obtain evidence in the ordinary course. The refusal of the Government to accept this simple Amendment is nothing more than another proof added to those which they have already given, that they intend not only to give us coercion in Ireland, but to force whatever kind of coercion they like down our throats without any regard to our representations or inclinations in the matter.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has delivered three speeches in opposition to the Amendment without advancing a single argument against the substance of that Amendment. The first time he addressed us he simply objected to the wording of the Amendment as implying a preliminary inquiry which could not have taken place. That was a mistake which was disposed of by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), who pointed out that the word "forthcoming" should be substituted for "with- held." When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General got up a second time the only objection he advanced was that this section would not be put in operation except in a proclaimed district, and that that was safeguard enough. It was then pointed out that that was not a safeguard, inasmuch as the Lord Lieutenant could proclaim a district whenever it appeared to him necessary, and without any crime whatsoever existing. Then the third speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was to the effect that there was a similar section inserted in the Act of 1882. It therefore comes to this, that the hon. and learned Attorney General supposes that there was some reason against such an Amendment discoverable in 1882, which in his opinion is not discoverable now because he has not stated it now. If there is a reason against it now why does not the hon. and learned Gentleman state it? And if there is no objection to it, and we assume so in the absence of argument, why not have the Amendment in the Act? Probably there was some objection to it in 1882 which is not now stated. The only reason why this section should be adopted at all is that there may be some difficulty in obtaining evidence. Will it be for one moment suggested that this section should be put into operation except on this ground? If this section should not be put into operation except on this ground, why not enact that it shall not be put into operation except on this ground? What is the objection to this enactment? The ground upon which the Act of 1882 was enacted was that there was a serious state of crime then existing in Ireland, and therefore the ostensible ground for it was the unusual amount of crime and disturbance; but it has been expressly stated that this measure has not been brought forward or based on statistics of crime. If this is so, then there is all the more apprehension that the Bill may be used for political purposes—much more ground for this apprehension than there was in the case of the Act of 1882. It has been stated—and I think it has been stated by a Cabinet Minister—that the object of this Bill is to put down the National League in Ireland. It is therefore only reasonable that Irish Members should be jealous as to the application of this Act, and should be careful to see that safeguards should be inserted so as to prevent its being illegitimately used against political opponents, and not for the purpose of repressing crime. I could mention cases in this country where it would be very convenient for us Liberals to have such a power as that contained in this clause; but it would be a bad thing to give such a power to us. There are cases of Boycotting by the Primrose League, which it would be convenient for us to have the power of inquiry into under cover of investigating matters of crime. It would be very advantageous to us to be able to investigate all the operations and workings of the Primrose League. It would be convenient for us to find out how the practice of Boycotting had been applied to shopkeepers, and how the system had been worked, by the landlords, who are stated to have given their farms entirely to Church people and Conservatives. It is because it would be possible to abuse powers of this kind and to use them for these illegitimate purposes, that we wish to have the security guaranteed by this Amendment put into the Act. We wish to provide that the only ground upon which the power conferred by the clause in question could be put into operation shall be that of the difficulty of obtaining evidence. Another illegitimate reason for putting this power into operation would be the ascertaining the defence of a prisoner while putting him upon his trial, and without eliciting evidence in his favour. I do not say the Act would be used in this way; but it is only reasonable that we should take precautions to prevent such a thing, and that we should see that this section shall not be put into operation for any purpose except that contemplated by the Legislature when the clause was added to the Act.

The clause the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) wishes to press upon the attention of the Committee is for the protection of witnesses from the insults they would be subjected to if the clause passed in its present form without this safeguard. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) rose to answer the arguments in favour of this Amendment and to answer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), we expected that he would demolish those arguments, or, at any rate, that he would endeavour to deal with them. The hon. and learned Gentleman rose in such a heat, however, that he probably lost control of himself. At any rate, I think that everyone will admit that he did not touch the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman in favour of this Amendment, and I think we cannot do better in discussing this measure than to avoid as far as possible the heated method in which the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed himself to the matter. He said that the first information, which merely stated on oath that the crime had been committed, was sufficient, and that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) was quite unnecessary. Well, Sir, the information on oath that a crime has taken place does not in the least touch the difficulty which the hon. Member for Cork wishes to guard against. The information on oath, as the Bill at present stands, is to state that a crime has taken place; but this does not meet the difficulty which my hon. Friend wishes to lay before the Committee. I think that in dealing with all the provisions of this Bill and with the Amendment, the Committee ought to devote great and serious attention to this matter, because it is now proposed that the terms of this drastic Coercion Bill are to be perpetual. Hitherto, when it has been the duty of any Government to propose a Coercion Act, the measure has always been limited to a certain period; consequently, when we are asked to pass a drastic Coercion Act, not for a period, but in perpetuity, it behaves hon. Gentlemen to be careful to safeguard the interests of the people whom they ask this House to coerce. We on these Benches would wish very much to have some other statement from the Treasury Bench besides that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in which some reasons might be convoyed to us for rejecting this moderate proposal. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not condescend to give us any reasons for rejecting the Amendment. Now that we see other legal Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, we have a right to appeal to them on this matter, and I think the least one of them could do would be to rise and give us something, at any rate, in the nature of a reason against this proposal.

It seems to me that the arguments in favour of this Bill, and in favour of every clause of it, and the grounds upon which every Amendment proposed from those Benches is rejected are that the clauses of this measure are similar to the clauses in the Act of 1882, as if the Act of 1882 were the perfection of legislation, as if that Act were a just measure required by the necessities of the case. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, of course, do not agree with us; but there is not an Irish Member on these Benches—and I fancy there are now a good number of English Members in agreement with us—who did not regard the Act of 1882 as one of the most infamous measures ever submitted to Parliament. We contended then, and we contend now, that it was not required by the necessities of the day, and that there were provisions in that Act which were simply a disgrace to England, the only thing to be said for it being that it was not so bad as this Bill, and perhaps not quite so bad as some of the great Coercion Bills which preceded it. The answer to the argument that the clause was in the Bill of 1882, is, that two wrongs do not make a right. The argument that the clause was in the Bill of 1882, and that, therefore, without any other suggestion or argument, it is to be taken as a just proposal, is, to my mind, a most preposterous and ridiculous proposition, which would never be listened to for a moment in any Assembly except one prepared to carry this Bill through, whether it be right or wrong. With regard to the taunts which have been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), in regard to his having "swallowed his principles," I should like to know who have most "swallowed their principles"—the Liberal Party, or the Party on the other side who declared, in 1885, that coercion was unnecessary—the Party who coquetted with the Nationalists through the Lord Lieutenant, and who said, if they were supported by the Irish vote, they would go in for Home Rule. The idea of the hon. and learned Attorney General taunting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby with having forgotten his principles is an evi- dence of an audacity that I should not have thought Members of this House capable of, if I had not evidence of it before my own eyes. What is the reason for rejecting an Amendment like this? Do Ministers really want this House to understand that they want this power of secret inquiry even when witnesses are forthcoming? Perhaps they do. But if they do not, why is it that they have not avowed it up to the present time? One of the pretences upon which they justify this Bill is that evidence is not forthcoming to convict criminals; but when they reject an Amendment of this kind, they confess that they want an inquisitorial power—that they want to confer upon the Executive in Dublin Castle power to act—not upon any sworn or trustworthy information which can be submitted to them—but that they want to act upon the information of Irish landlords, who will sneak up the back stairs of the Castle to confer with them in whispers in order to induce them to protect their interests. The Government want to act upon the whispers of ruffians and villians of this description. This Act would not be so bad if it were not for the fact that it will be used to advance the iniquitous cause of these landlords—these sneaking creatures who hate their countrymen, and who want to deprive them of all the liberty that a free people should possess. Again, it would be all right if these people to whom I am referring had not in Dublin Castle a sympathetic Executive. What will render the absence of this Amendment more than ordinarily unjust is that in Dublin Castle the rack-renting landlords will find sympathy from top to bottom. In Dublin Castle what every one of them whispers will be received as Gospel, and the oaths of the people, in contradiction of such whispers, will be treated as nought. This is what will render this provision, and will render every other provision of the Bill, so exceedingly dangerous. I cannot too strongly impress upon the House this feature of the case, and I hope every opportunity will be seized to make it plain to the English people that this Bill is to be worked, not by an impartial Executive, but by one that is thoroughly partizan, and is determined to be partizan, and will continue to be partizan so long as it can find support in this country.

I make no apology for addressing the Committee upon this Amendment at this period, because I think I speak with some authority upon this question—authority derived from my own criminal knowledge and experience, I myself having undergone imprisonment, accompanied with the luxuries of prison clothes and oakum-picking, for six months under a measure of this kind. When complaints and recriminations are bandied from one side of the House to the other, to me they are not very convincing. I was much struck by an observation of an hon. Friend of mine the other night. Speaking of the readiness with which different Governments adopted a coercive policy for Ireland, he said that whether it was the upper or the nether millstone that did the grinding—whether the Coercion Act was a Liberal or a Tory one—still we were ground all the same. With reference to this Amendment, even if we cannot get our views accepted, still we will stand in the position of making a reasonable demand in regard to every line of the Bill, leaving to the Government the onus of refusing those demands. What do we ask now? We ask, in this Amendment, that where a crime is committed that these ridiculous powers of secret inquisitorial investigation shall not be granted unless there is some reason to believe that an offence has been committed, and that, owing to intimidation, the evidence in connection with it is not forthcoming. I think that is a very fair and a very proper proposition. I had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster); but it has been reported to me from these Benches, that in that speech he said practically nothing, and that he only indulged in a tu quoque argument with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I think we have a right to claim that some Member of Her Majesty's Government shall stand up and tell us what they want by this Bill. Do they want to put down crime? We give them very large power to do that. Do they want where crime has been committed to bring prisoners to justice? You have power to do that in the existing law, and where you have not we give it to you in this Bill, and we concede full power to bring criminals to justice. But you say you want power to examine witnesses—either for or against the accused—secretly. I think this is an unconstitutional demand. It is one that ought to be given only on very solid grounds, and until you have shown that some very great necessity exists for it, you have not a leg to stand on. If intimidation is rife in Ireland, it must be very easy for you to prove it—and that is all we ask for in the Amendment—that you shall prove that crime is rife in a district before you ask for powers of secret inquisition—that you shall show that the people are unwilling to come forward to give evidence against criminals. If you do not do that, it is monstrous to ask for these powers. What will happen at these secret inquiries? Why, the Resident Magistrates—men who have no legal knowledge, except such as will satisfy the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—and I am of opinion that it is a very meagre amount of legal knowledge that will satisfy him—such Resident Magistrates may put to witnesses any questions they like. They may ask a man whether the moon is made of green cheese, and where, for certain philosophical or other reasons, the witness declines to answer the question, they may send him to prison for an indefinite period. Magistrates, it is said, have at the present time power to commit a person for not giving an answer, but that is not so much the question. The question really is the amount of power the magistrate is to have to originate inquiries. His legal knowledge, or the construction of his mind, may not be perfect—and yet, under the Act, you are going to have no check upon him. On that question, if it is to be asked, he himself is the sole judge and the only authority to commit the witness if he refuses to answer. Bearing always in mind the serious fact that in a disturbed district a person who goes before a tribunal and comes out in a mysterious way is set down, more or less, as a marked man, I think you should grant to us that there shall be proof that in those districts there is such intimidation as warrants you in taking the powers under the clause. We only ask that, before you take to yourselves power of bringing every man, woman, and child into the secret chamber of the magis- trate—before you take power to examine them on every act of their lives, every act of association and intimacy—you should prove, not merely that there has been crime committed in the district, but that you should also prove that the state of disorganization is such that the people do not sympathize with the law, and that they are willingly shielding the criminal, and that evidence is not forthcoming. I say we have a right to insist, within the prescribed limits of debate here, that there should be an answer to this argument from the Government Bench. Why is it the Government will not answer these words? Let them stand up and tell us why they refuse to insert the provision which my hon. Friend proposes, that this secret inquiry shall only take place when it is proved that there is need for it. We want it proved that there is sympathy with the criminal, not before you punish crime, but before you adopt this secret method of procedure. I think we are entitled to an answer on that point, and that before we get much further we shall obtain it.

said: I cannot understand why the Government do not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy). It seems to mo that the Amendment is a very reasonable one—that the Attorney General should be satisfied that, owing to intimidation or other improper cause, evidence has been withheld before this mysterious inquiry is instituted. It is very easy for the Government to prove that intimidation exists, if it does exist; and we consider that this clause should be safeguarded by the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which will do something to remove from the minds of Members of this House and the people of Ireland the impression that the Bill is aimed at the political opponents of the Government, and not at crimes?

I think, in refusing the Amendment of my hon. Friend, the Government are themselves responsible for the delay which may take place in discussing this point further this evening. The Government ought, in my opinion, readily to admit an Amendment which, while it explains their moaning, is some measure of protection that this clause shall not be put in force improperly. The fact that there has been intimidation can very easily be explained, and I cannot understand why the Government persist in refusing to accept our proposal intended to secure that this provision shall be fairly worked.

As far as I can judge, the position of the Government on this point is that they have, by refusing to accept this Amendment, smashed their whole argument for the passage of the Bill. It is really on the prevalence of intimidation throughout the whole of Ireland that their argument for the Bill is based. If intimidation and undue influence exist all through Ireland, as has been contended by the Government for the last four or five weeks, the words proposed to be introduced by my hon. Friend would have no practical effect whatever en the working of the Act; because although the words may seem to be a limitation of the powers of the clause, if the contention of the Government is correct, there would be no limitation in practice. The words amount to this, that the Attorney General for Ireland shall satisfy himself that, owing to intimidation or improper influence, evidence has been withheld. I need not point out that if intimidation is so widespread as the Attorney General for Ireland says it is, the introduction of the words would not act as a real limitation of the powers in this Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, and everyone connected with the Government knows, that there is no such thing as general intimidation, except that exercised by the landlords. The original contention of the Government is fallacious in every respect, and they are aware that under examination it entirely falls to pieces. We ask that the Government should satisfy themselves that they have proof that there is intention to interfere with the ends of justice before they resort to the measure which is proposed; and I say it would be an abuse of government in this or any other country were that precaution not taken. In Scotland this species of inquiry is only applied to cases of major crime; whereas in Ireland it is proposed to be applied to every crime constituted by this Bill. I do not see why the Govern- ment should refuse to accept this Amendment, unless, as I have pointed out, they have utterly given up the whole case on which they found the Bill. Of course, if they have abandoned their position, then I admit that they are consistent in rejecting the Amendment. What has been our experience? We know that a clause similar to this was applied in Ireland to the persecution of many innocunt persons by the permanent Heads of Departments. They are the same to-day as they were then, with the exception of Sir Robert Hamilton, who has been run out simply because he was a moderate man, and his place has been taken by a military person, who will probably be replaced by the Under Secretary for Ireland (Mr. King-Harman), or some notorious and rabid Orangeman. The clause will be in the hands of the permanent officials. It is because of that, and because it will not be applied to the honest detection of serious crime, but to the purpose of continuing excessive rents in Ireland and to purposes even more unjust, that we wish to insert these words; and it is because the Government have no intention whatever of asking for this clause for the purpose of detecting real crime, but for defeating their political opponents by these underhand means, that they refuse to accept it.

We have been discussing this clause at very considerable length, and although this Amendment has been spoken against by eminent lawyers on the Treasury Bench, I wish to state that no really intelligent reason has been given for declining to accept this Amendment. It was the Attorney General for England who struck the key note, that we should have unlimited confidence in the Lord Lieutenant, and that when he proclaimed a district the mere fact that this was done was conclusive evidence that everyone in the district was a rascal or assassin. I have pointed out, that although a district may be disturbed or proclaimed, it does not follow that the people in that district would have sympathy with all crime. The sworn information might disclose crime or offences which every individual in the district might reprobate, and under the clause the Attorney General would be in a position to drag everybody in the county before a magistrate, if they do not give as much evidence as is wanted. That is a very alarming state of things. But they were not satisfied with ending there; they harked back to the old Crimes Act of 1882, and asserted that similar powers were included in that Act. Now there is a very great distinction between the provision of the Act of 1882 and the provision of this Bill as to the procedure for setting on foot this special inquiry. In the Act of 1882 you will find that this inquiry is set on foot by sworn information made and handed to any Resident Magistrate, and then the Act goes on to say that upon the sworn information the Resident Magistrate might summon and examine witnesses whom he believes to be material witnesses concerning the offence. I need not point out to the five eminent legal Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench what the meaning of "may" is here. A Resident Magistrate is a judicial functionary, and you say he may do certain acts, which means that he shall. In 1882, upon the information of any individual the Resident Magistrate really should call before him any material witnesses whom he found within his jurisdiction. The position in this Act is entirely different, because here the information is to be handed to the Attorney General, a gentleman who is not a judicial functionary, but who will have it in his discretion to say whether he shall or shall not direct the Resident Magistrate to hold an inquiry. I also desire to point out the distinction as to the method of proclaiming a district. Now, in the Act of 1882, we find that a Proclamation could only be made upon specific allegations that there had been crime and outrage. But in this case it will be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any district upon no allegation whatsoever, but upon his own opinion that it would be wiser and better for the district to be proclaimed. Not having the safeguard as to the power of proclamation we are entitled, I think, to have the safeguard we now suggest. It has been argued ad nauseam that this Bill is necessary owing, first, to the existence of crime; and, secondly, to the existence of widespread demoralization and intimidation. If intimidation does exist, and if this clause is only necessary for intimidation, surely it would be only common sense and reason not to put this clause into force until you have got at least one individual to swear there is widespread intimidation. I do not think that it is a real safeguard that some individuals should be called upon to swear. I have no doubt that you will find scores of land-agents, bailiffs, emergency men, and members of the Irish Patriotic Union who will most readily swear there is a widespread intimidation, but at least we should have this safeguard, that if they do swear they can be pilloried in this House and the public Press as liars and scoundrels. The least we are entitled to ask is that when this clause, which gives most drastic powers, is put into force, we should have some individual charged with the responsibility of putting it into force, some individual whose name would be before the public, and who could be dealt with in the public Press and in this House. The Government do not desire that; they desire that some gentleman, slinking about the Constitutional Club, should say to the Attorney General—"There are a number of tenants who are not paying their rents, and an inquiry ought to be held." If these powers of secret inquiry were given to men like Plunkett, there is not the slightest doubt they would be used most drastically. That is what we desire to prevent. We desire that any proceedings putting this section into force must be taken in the light of day. If the Government has any real belief in the existence of intimidation they can have no objection whatever to accept this Amendment. They will not accept it, however, and why? Because they know there is no real intimidation in the country. What did Inspector Davies, of Castleisland, one of the worst districts in Ireland, say before Lord Cowper's Commission? He said—

"Intimidation is very rife, but there are only two persons who are seriously interfered with owing to it."

It is quite evident the Government mean to use these powers against their political opponents, and this Amendment, at any rate, has had the good effect of showing the falsity and the hollowness of the arguments put forward on a previous occasion in favour of this Bill. One by one we have seen their arguments torn to shreds; our observations will go to the public, and we have no fear but what the public will deal between us fairly and justly. For that reason I hope the debate tonight will be continued until the Government give us some more honest, more straightforward, or, at least, intelligible answer to this Amendment.

The object of this Bill, or of this clause, is the detection of crime. Let us see what grounds the Government can have for refusing this Amendment. We contend that however good the evidence of the Government may be, however much the framers of this Bill may have directed it against crime, it will be used for other purposes; for the purpose of collecting debts, for the purpose of intimidation, the very thing they say now it is to remedy—for the purpose of intimidating, especially the peasant class, and for the purpose of breaking up combinations, whether economic, social, or political, rather than for the purpose of the detection of crime. We are told we must have unlimited confidence in the honour of the Lord Lieutenant or the Attorney General for Ireland. Of course, whore a Constitutional Government exists, not only in form but in reality, there is unlimited confidence in the honour, integrity, and patriotism of the Executive from the highest to the lowest branch of it. But the very fact that there is that confidence in the Executive, and in the honour of the servants of the Executive, does not prevent their power being hedged around by the law in every way, so that if they should go wrong there should be a check preventing them going far wrong. However you may trust the administration of the Executive, you should have checks to prevent them going wrong. I want to know why it is the Government object to have this check upon the improper and unconstitutional use of these very drastic powers which it is proposed to grant to the Attorney General for Ireland and to the Resident Magistrates? Let us see how these powers may be used. The clause may apply to an offence of any kind, the pulling down of a garden wall, or the burning of four or five pennyworth of hay, cattle trespassing on the highway—anything may be considered an offence, and dealt with under this clause. Wherever it is wanted to interfere with the organization of the people, wherever it is wanted to put on the screw so as to enforce the collection of rents, wherever it is wanted to get at the secrets of the tenants, an offence will be ready to turn up. There are people in Ireland who will create offences—a person who wants to put this section in motion has nothing to do but to write a threatening letter to himself and nail it up on his own door—as one man was caught in the act of doing—and then go to the Resident Magistrate the next morning and claim that this clause shall b e enforced. Let us take an ordinary case of crime. As the Bill stands at present, unless there is some check against the abuse of this power, it may be used, although the police in the neighbourhood, and the Resident Magistrates in the neighbourhood, may have ample evidence as to who has committed a particular offence. There is nothing to prevent a sworn inquiry being held with the sole object of exercising a terrorism over the whole people of a neighbourhood. I cannot see what loss or damage would be done to the administration of the law by the small delay which the adoption of the precautions recommended would entail. It would be a delay in the interest of justice, fair play, and the good name and the good character of the neighbourhood, and would conduce to no mischief whatever, or in any way prevent the detection and the final punishment of crime. There is another consideration which I wish to advance. the whole history of Irish agrarian crime brings out the fact very prominently that agrarian crimes are not committed by the persons residing in the neighbourhoods where the crime is committed. Every Special Commission reveals that Castleisland is acknowledged to be one of the most disturbed districts of Ireland; but even there, if we may judge from previous agrarian disturbances, it is quite possible that the offences which have been committed have been committed by people from a distance, by people coming, possibly, 50 or 60 miles. In a case of that sort let us see what an advantage it would be to have some breathing time. Let the authorities make inquiries, and see whether or not there is reason to suppose that the real criminals were people belonging to the proclaimed districts. Suppose—and the supposition is not only a feasible one, but a very likely one in a great many instances to be correct—suppose the man who maimed cattle, or fired into a house, came from a considerable distance, what would be the result? For an offence of which every person in the district would be innocent, the district would be subjected to this inquisitorial proceeding, which would spread terror among innocent men and do nothing to detect crime.

I have failed for some time to see the connection of the hon. Member's remarks with the Amendment before the Committee.