asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is a fact that the accounts of the Army abroad and India are audited every month, while those of the Army at home are only audited half yearly; and, in such case, what is the reason for the distinction; and, if he will consider whether a monthly audit would be advantageous to financial control in the public interest, as well as more satisfactory to the officers of the Army Pay Department?

(who replied) said: In reply to this Question, I have to say that I am quite of opinion that a monthly audit of accounts is preferable on many grounds; and I am now considering a scheme by which it may be arrived at without causing additional charge against the public.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the claims for com- pensation, in some way or other, of those senior Majors in the Army, very few of whom remain, who attained the rank of Captain before the abolition of purchase, and who, owing to the issue of the Royal Warrant of 1st January, 1887, have lost the chance of early promotion, and many of whom will probably have to retire on account of age before attaining the rank of substantive Lieutenant Colonel; and, whether it is the fact that those few officers who consequently do not attain the rank of Lieutenant Colonel will lose at least £50 per year pension?

(who replied) said: A certain number of Majors will have their chances of promotion impaired by the reduction in regimental establishments; but I cannot admit any claim to compensation arising on such grounds. The original Warrant of 1877, which brought in compulsory retirement, made a liberal provision for compensating what were then looked upon, perhaps justly, as the vested rights of purchase officers; but in the preamble of that Warrant, and of every subsequent Warrant on Promotion and Retirement, it was clearly stipulated that no future claim should arise for compensation in regard to any promotion or pension which might be affected by any Warrant or change of regulation issued thereafter. This I must adhere to as a general principle; and, as regards this particular case, I may point out that before the changes of establishment made in 1881 there was only one Lieutenant Colonel in a regiment of Cavalry or battalion of Infantry, so that the present senior Major would, but for that change, have been the second Major, with only one officer in the rank next above him.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the general service wagons, just issued to the Regimental Transport at Aldershot, have not had their guard-irons and foot-boards altered according to pattern laid down in War Office Order, No. 4741, of 1885; and, if so, who is responsible for such omission; whether the Order quoted was issued on account of some men of the Army Service Corps having been killed and injured, owing to accidents caused by the defective construction of the guard-irons and foot-boards, prior to 1885; and, whether the reserve of general service wagons in store are all of defective pattern?

(who replied) said: The wagons issued lately at Aldershot are only intended for use temporarily till others of the altered pattern are received from Woolwich. No wagons are issued from the reserve store at Woolwich until they have been altered in accordance with the Order of 1885. Orders were given to have all wagons altered according to the pattern specified in the Question; and those at Aldershot ought to have been so altered locally, as they were in store there when the orders were given. I will cause inquiry to be made as to the cause of the omission. The Order of 1885 was issued in consequence of a fatal accident to two men of the Commissariat and Transport Corps.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether information has reached him that the two brothers named Howard, in Kilmainham Gaol since June, 1886, under committal by the Vice Chancellor of Ireland for contempt of Court, are both men of weak intellect, in fact almost imbecile, and incapable of understanding the reason why they were committed to prison, or why they are kept there; whether, in a Return recently presented to Parliament, the mental condition of both these men is described as "indifferent;" will he make inquiries into those cases, and get a full Report from the medical officer; and, if the facts are as indicated, will he take steps to obtain the release of the Howards?

(who replied) said, he understood the brothers Howard were committed not by the Vice Chancellor, but by the Judge of the Land Division of the High. Court of Justice. The prison medical officer had furnished a Report as to the mental condition of the men; and the Chief Secretary would have that Report forwarded to the Judge, with a view to his taking such action as he thought right.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer the latter part of the Question?

I have answered it.

I beg to say that I will repeat the latter portion of the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Michael Spillane has been confined in Kilmainham Gaol since the 19th January, 1886, when he was committed by Judge Boyd for unsatisfactory answering in the Bankruptcy Court; whether all his assets were subsequently realized, and the entire proceeds handed over to the Court; whether his wife, a fortnight after her confinement, and nine children, the eldest under 15 years of age, were turned out of their house and obliged to take refuge in the Killarney Workhouse, where they still remain; whether, in a Return recently presented to Parliament, the medical officer of the gaol reports that this man has a serious cardiac affection; and, whether, considering the punishment already inflicted on Spillane, he will make representations in the proper quarter with a view of obtaining his release from prison?

(who replied) said, Spillane had been committed by Judge Boyd under the circumstances stated. He had no means of ascertaining whether the statements in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Question were correct or not. A Report had been received from the medical officer of the prison that the man was suffering from a cardiac affection, and that Report had been forwarded to the learned Judge.

asked, would the Government take immediate steps to have the man liberated?

said, the Report of the medical officer had been seat to the learned Judge by that evening's post, and the Government could not do anything beyond that.

asked, wore periodical Reports not made in regard to prisoners of this description?

said, if the hon. Member wanted an answer to that Question he should put it on the Paper, as he (Mr. Holmes) was not acquainted with the procedure of the prison in the matter.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. David Maxwell, journeyman saddler, who it is reported on the 30th April last was fishing for trout on that part of the River Tweed, near Kelso, known as the "Junction Water," which it is alleged has always been open to the public for trout fishing, and no intimation has been made that it is closed; whether Mr. J. E. W. Drummond, Writer to the Signet, who leases a salmon fishing on the Tweed, which includes the "Junction Water," ordered Mr. Maxwell to desist from fishing, and, on his refusing, pushed him from a boat, so that Mr. Maxwell was immersed in the river; whether this assault was reported to the County Fiscal, who refused to take it up; and, whether he will instruct the Fiscal to proceed with the case?

My attention has been called to this case. I understand that Mr. Drummond, who is lessee of the fishing at the part of the river in question, has always permitted angling for trout, and has no intention of preventing members of the public enjoying this sport; but he does object to people wading in deep and fishing into the salmon casts of which he is tenant. On the occasion in question Mr. Drummond was fishing for salmon, and Mr. Maxwell was up to his middle in the water fishing for trout in the same pool, Mr. Drummond remonstrated with him, and told him that, while he did not object to his fishing for trout at other parts of his water, he objected to his wading into his salmon cast, and he repeatedly asked him to leave that part of the water. Mr. Maxwell, erroneously believing that his having fished for many years on that water gave him a legal right to do so, refused to leave the salmon cast; and Mr. Drummond, coming up in his fishing boat, insisted on his going away, telling him that if he would not legal proceedings would have to be taken. Mr. Drummond did give Mr. Maxwell what the onlookers described as a slight push on the shoulder with his hand. Mr. Maxwell fell. He at once said he had got what he wanted, presumably meaning that he had got a legal case. He was not injured, and went on fishing for some time. On a complaint being made, the Procurator Fiscal made an inquiry, and was satisfied that there was nut ground for a criminal prosecution. I have seen the note of evidence taken on the inquiry, and also a fuller precognition taken since, and I concur in the opinion of the Procurator Fiscal.

I should like to ask the Lord Advocate if a poor man may push a rich man into the water?

Order, order!

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether it is the fact that it is in contemplation to appoint Colonel Maitland (Superintendent of Gun Factory at Woolwich) to a higher post; and, who is chiefly responsible for the design of the 14 43-ton guns condemned as worthless, after the bursting of the Collingwood's gun, and which cost about £90,000?

also asked, What use it was intended to make of the 13 guns which had not burst, and which had been condemned as useless?

The first part of the Question is for the Secretary of State. I can only say that, as yet, I have received no information on the subject; and I presume that my right hon. Friend is unlikely to consider questions of new appointments until he has studied the Reports of the Royal Commission and of the Earl of Morley's Committee on the Manufacturing Departments. With regard to the second part of the Question, Colonel Maitland accepts the responsibility for the design and submission of the Collingwood, gun to the Ordnance Committee. So far from these guns being condemned as worthless, they are being chase-hooped and issued for service in the forts, and are used with most satisfactory results for testing the new steel armour-piercing projectiles. As regards the chase, the part which failed, the design was in conformity with the practice of the best Continental makers of ordnance, all of whom have been compelled to follow the chase-hooping plan which has been adopted by us.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests made a Special Report to Government or to the Attorney General for Ireland, in reference to the disposal of the fund left by the will of Miss Catherine Eaton, to establish a woollen factory in the town of Wicklow; and, if so, will he lay it upon the Table of the House?

(who replied) said, no such Special Report was made to the Government; but the case was laid before the late Attorney General for Ireland for his opinion. That case could not be laid on the Table of the House; but he would allow the hon. Member to see it if he cabled at his Office.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, When the Report of Lord Crawford's Committee on the Connection of Lighthouses and Lightships with the Mainland by Telegraph Communication, so far as regards Tory Island, will be laid upon the Table?

The Board of Trade are informed by the Committee that their Report will be sent in with as little delay as possible. I am not aware that a special Report will be made with regard to Tory-Island.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a teacher has yet been appointed to fill the vacancy created in the Carrickawilkin (County Armagh) National School, by the dismissal of Mr. T. A. Irwin; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay, and when it is intended to make the appointment?

A communication has been received by the Board of National Education from the management of the school announcing the appointment of a new teacher.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, How many Civil Service writers have, under the terms of the Treasury Minute of the 22nd December last, been recommended for promotion to the Lower Division clerkships; what number of writers so recommended have been placed on the Lower Division; and, can he also state the number of writers who have accepted the gratuity offered, and have left the Government service?

(who replied) said: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to answer Questions relating to the writers. I practically answered this Question in my reply to the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. C. Harrington) yesterday. The number of copyists who have accepted the gratuity and left the Government service is 31.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fact that a pier, which was constructed by the Commissioners of Irish Public Works at Cape Clear Island 12 years ago, is, for all practical purposes, useless to the inhabitants of that Island; whether the expenses of said pier were partly defrayed by local contributions; whether a Memorial praying that its defects would be remedied was received by the Commissioners of Irish Public Works in 1884; and, whether, considering the importance of Cape Clear as a fishing station, steps will be taken to make the pier of some advantage to the inhabitants of the Island?

(who replied) said: The information which comes to me does not show that this pier is useless for all practical purposes. The expense of erection was partly defrayed by local contributions. A Memorial was received on October 29, 1883, and was forwarded the next day to the Commissioners appointed under the Sea Fisheries Act, who, however, did not see fit to allocate any sum for the execution of works. The Board of Works have no funds at their disposal at present which could be applied to improvements at Cape Clear.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman for what practical purposes is the pier useful? I know none.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fact that the men employed by the Board of Irish Public Works at Loo Rock for the past three years have recently discontinued working; and, if so, when their operations will be resumed?

(who replied) said: In consequence of the exposed position of this rock-which is also little above low water-it is impossible to execute works on it except in very calm weather, and, therefore, the works were suspended on October 29 last. The chief engineer to the Board of Works visited the rock on the 12th instant, and has called for a tender from an experienced contractor, which it is expected will be received within the present week.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether complaints have reached him that it is the practice of Her Majesty's Officers of Customs and Excise to open bottles taken from cases containing spirits, and to withdraw there from a considerable portion of liquor, in order to test the strength of the spirit contained therein, and then to replace the bottles so opened in the case from which they were taken without any notification of the fact to those to whom such cases are consigned, thus entailing a considerable loss to the consignees on the cases so opened; and, whether he will take steps to remedy this grievance by having the cases so opened specially marked and charged with a lower duty?

I have received no complaints on this subject, nor have the Board of Inland Revenue, and I understand that the Board of Customs seldom receive any. The process of sampling and testing the strength of spirits is too long for me to explain in answer to a Question; but if the hon. Gentleman will speak co me I shall be happy to put him in communication with the Boards of Customs and Inland Revenue, who will give him every information, I may, however, say that no bottle is sampled without being labelled as such.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Royal Commission on the Education Acts are expected to report at an early date?

, in reply, said, that another volume of evidence had been issued by the Royal Commission. He feared there was no chance of the Report being presented before the close of the present Session.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that a gratuity of one month's pay was awarded to workmen of seven years' service on being discharged from Chatham Dockyard; and, whether he will extend a like favour to the men under notice to be discharged from Haulbowline on the 1st June?

The gratuity of a month's pay which is to be awarded to certain classes of workmen of Chatham Dockyard will be extended to all classes of workmen of similar standing and occupation who may be discharged this year in consequence of the reduction of the Dockyard establishments. I cannot say now if the men under notice to be discharged from Haulbowline on the 1st of June will come in this category; but my impression is that they will not.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Land Commissioners have not sat in Clonmel since February, 1884; whether a large number of cases for settlement of rent have been listed for hearing from the surrounding districts, some of the originating notices having been served nearly three years ago; and, whether he will inquire if the Commissioners can advance the date fixed by them for the hearing of these cases?

The Land Commissioners report that the facts are in no wise as alleged in the Question. The Munster Sub - Commission held sittings in the County Tipperary in May, 1886, and sat in Court at Clonmel towards the end of that month. No Tipperary cases in Clonmel Union were then left remaining over; and of the part of the County Waterford which is situate in Clonmel Union there are only three cases remaining over from the June, 1886, sittings, from which they were necessarily adjourned. The hearing of Tipperary cases will probably be again taken up in the usual course towards the end of July. It would not be practicable to advance the date.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement that it is in contemplation to establish 52 out-stills for the manufacture of spirits in the Hugli District of Bengal; whether one such out-still was opened at Bhastarah, on the 1st of April last, with the effect of disturbing the peace of the village; and, whether he will communicate with the Government of India, with a view to suppress these provocations to intemperance?

The statements implied in this Question would come under the notice of the Government of India in the ordinary course. The Secretary of State has no information about them, and he does not think it necessary to send a despatch on the subject. This Question, and others recently put by the hon. Member, seem to suggest that our policy in India is to encourage intemperance for the sake of revenue. I am informed that the precise contrary is the fact. The consumption of spirits is checked by a repressively high duty; and since 1872, in consequence of improvements in the Abkari Administration, the number of liquor shops has steadily and appreciably decreased, notwithstanding the increase of the population during that period.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of India, having, since the Commission as constituted under Sir Charles Aitchison broke up, appointed a limited Sub-Committee to inquire into the subject of the admission not only of Natives but Europeans to all the more important branches of the Public Service connected with the Civil administration of the country, thus largely extending the scope of the inquiry, any arrangements have been made to give the Uncovenanted Service a fair opportunity of laying its grievances before the Committee; whether his attention has been called to the expressions of alarm in the Indian Press and among the Anglo-Indian community at the course being pursued by the Government of India, owing to the suspicion that very important changes are contemplated in the organization and condition of the Services, especially in the direction of a large admission of Natives to important positions in the Services; whether the Under Secretary of State has information that the Bengal Chamber of Commerce has had submitted to it a letter strongly deprecating the course now being pursued by the Government in relation to this question; whether, having regard to the grave interests involved, he can make any statement with regard to the ultimate object of the inquiry, and the time within which it will be brought to a conclusion, which may have the effect of re-assuring investors and others having interests in India that no serious changes are about to be made in the direction indicated in the above letter; and, what object the Government of India has in view in its present proceedings?

The Public Service Commission has not broken up. It was originally appointed in consequence of a Despatch of the Earl of Kimberley, dated 15th July, 1886, to inquire into the admission of Natives of India to officers formerly reserved exclusively for members of the Covenanted Civil Service. The Resolution of the 4th October, 1886, appointing the Commission, and the Resolution of the 8th March last, appointing the Sub-Committee, referred to by the hon. Member, have been laid upon the Table. From the former of these Resolutions it will be seen that the necessity for appointing such a Sub-Committee as that referred to was contemplated from the first. The latter of the Resolutions states the subjects referred to the Sub-Committee for inquiry, as—

"First, the present Regulations of the various Departments as to admission to the various grades and ranks in each; the conditions of service in each Department; and the capacity for rendering efficient service therein of the various classes who put forward claims to such employment."

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How many hours is supposed to constitute one day's work for the constables in and about the House of Commons; will he recommend that each constable be paid for any overtime; and, whether he will say the reasons given by Sir Charles Warren for refusing to pay them for any overtime during the last six months?

(who replied) said: The Secretary of State is informed by the Commissioner of Police that the average number of hours during which police constables are employed in the House is not greater than that of men employed in other public buildings, as although they have more hours on certain days they have lighter work on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. They get about 25 per cent more pay than constables employed at ordinary work, and duty in the Houses of Parliament is very eagerly sought after by members of the Force. On special occasions, when the messengers of the House receive extra pay, the Commissioner of Police recommends a similar allowance to the police on duty. He has done so within the last six months. The Secretary of State does not intend to make any recommendation to the Chief Commissioner on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether information has reached him that an organized attempt to suppress public meetings in Ulster is being made at present, by the calling of counter meetings at the same time and place, with the object of having both meetings proclaimed; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps to secure the liberty of public meeting in Ireland? I wish to ask also, Whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is the intention of the Orange Society to suppress National public meetings in that fashion in the North of Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the Question of which he gave me private Notice was asked yesterday in the House by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and that there was a debate late at night on the same subject. I do not think I can add anything to the statement of policy which I then made on be-half of the Government.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received the information that the placard, in consequence of which the Nationalist meeting at Dungannon was suppressed, was concocted by the Earl of Ranfurly, a Justice of the Peace, and his agent, also a Justice of the Peace, in the shop of Mr. Aiker, in the town of Dungannon, and if the announcement to hold the Orange meeting was the only reason why the original meeting was proclaimed?

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that nothing has been done to repair the pier on the north side of Arklow Harbour, and that a quantity of old piles and blocks of stone are thrown in the bed of the river, obstructing the entrance to the harbour; and, whether he will direct the Board of Works forthwith to complete the work in accordance with the original contract, as set forth in Parliamentary Paper [C. 4775]?

I am informed that no representations have been made to the Board of Works as to débris from the old north pier at Arklow obstructing the entrance to the harbour, and no obstruction is believed to exist. Nothing has been done towards repairing the old pier; but the new north groyne proposed to be constructed when the plans were approved would occupy the site of the old pier, and doubtless improve the entrance. As, however, the hon. Member is well aware, no steps can be taken for the construction of the new groyne until the township of Arklow shall have given a guarantee for any excess caused in its construction over the sum originally provided for the harbour works at Arklow.

asked, was it not the fact that the original sum was quite sufficient to cover all the expenses of making the harbour according to the original plan; and that it was in consequence of a departure from the plan that the additional expenses had become necessary.

said, the answer to that must be that the sum originally granted was not sufficient, because it had proved insufficient. He had been assured that every precaution would be taken to make the work complete.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether his attention has been drawn, by announcements in the Press and elsewhere, to the outbreak of grouse disease in various parts of Scotland, and the North of England; and, whether, in consideration of the great scientific, pecuniary, and other interests involved, he will direct an investigation into the nature of the epidemic, to be undertaken by the officers of the Veterinary Department?

(who re- plied) said: Grouse disease cannot be dealt with by the veterinary officers of the Privy Council, as the Acts under which they work are limited to "four-footed beasts," and the Department have no funds at their disposal for undertaking such an investigation as that referred to in the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When it was intended to bring in the promised Bill to regularize the position of his Under Secretary; if his attention has been called to the speech of Colonel King-Harman, M. P., at a meeting held on 10th January, 1884, in Rathmines Rink, to protest against Earl Spencer's action in removing the Earl of Rossmore from the Magistracy, when the present Under Secretary for Ireland declared he was an Orangeman; if he is aware that at the meeting called to welcome the Right Hon. W. H. Smith, in the Rotunda, Dublin, on 24th January, 1884, the Under Secretary is reported to have said—

"It was easy enough in the North for men to stand together. The Orange Association, of which he (Colonel King-Harman) was a member, was a strong bond of union for men professing one faith in this country;"

"Take measures for the effectual discouragement of Orange Lodges and all Societies excluding persons of different faiths using signs and symbols and acting by associated branches,"

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask him if he is not aware that, in accordance with the Resolution referred to in the Question, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland was totally dissolved in 1836; and if in 1845 the Orange Institution was not reorganized upon a new basis, in consequence of the revolutionary proceedings in the agitation for the repeal of the Union under O'Connell?

A Bill dealing with the Office of Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant will be brought in as soon as practicable; but it is impossible, in the present state of Public Business, to fix a date. My attention has not previously been drawn to the particular incidents referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the Question; but I understand from my right hon. and gallant Friend that the statements are substantially accurate. With regard to the matters of history to which the hon. and learned Member refers, the House is aware that the Orange Society, which was the subject of the Resolution and Treasury Minute mentioned, was dissolved by its own authorities; and that, as explained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), in reply to a similar Question three years ago, the Society was subsequently re-constituted on an entirely different basis, without secret signs or religious ceremonial. Under successive Governments since those occurrences membership has not been held to be a bar to employment under the Crown; and, in these circumstances, Her Majesty's present Advisers agree with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian on the occasion I have already referred to, that—

"It would not be discreet or considerate on the part of the Government … to carry into execution a Minute which had remained in abeyance for a long time, but which was aimed at the provisions of a certain Society, which provisions had ceased to exist."

Is the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred of such a nature as that it will have to be founded on a Resolution in Committee?

In all probability that will be the case.

Has the Government made any inquiries to satisfy themselves whether the Orange Society does not still remain a Society with secret signs and symbols; and as to the point of religious faith, has the right hon. Gentleman seen books of the Society which show that members were expelled for marrying a Catholic—such as So-and-so for marrying a Papist?

I did not say anything about religious faith; but I spoke about religious rites.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of Lord Palmerston, in 1855, did, as a matter of fact, issue a Circular to the Lord Chancellor not to permit any Orangeman to become a magistrate, and stating they would not make Orangemen magistrates in future?

I do not think it necessary to go behind the declaration of policy made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, to which I have referred.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, What official is responsible for the continuation of the proceedings in the Court of Bankruptcy which has caused the imprisonment of Father Keller; and, whether the usual course has been followed in these proceedings?

, in reply, said, the usual course was taken in the case.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether there is any other instance in which the Official Assignee commenced proceedings against the unanimous wish of the creditors?

asked the Secretary of State for War, Who are the Members of the Ordnance Committee; by whom were they appointed, and for how long?

The names of the Ordnance Committee will be found in the monthly Army List, at page 44. The Military Members are appointed by the Secretary of State for War; the Naval Members by the Admiralty, with the Secretary of State's concurrence; and one represents the India Office. The usual term of appointment is three years, but the Committee is at present sitting during pleasure; and in the light of the approaching changes in the Ordnance Department, the whole constitution of the Committee will be reconsidered. The Civilian Members (Sir Frederick Bramwell and Mr. W. H. Barlow) have served since the appointment of the Committee in 1881, and were appointed by the Secretary of State for War.

asked the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, Whether the attention of the Committee has been called to a Petition, lately presented to the House by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), purporting to be signed by inhabitants of the Eastern Division of the Borough of Bradford; whether he is aware that very many of the names appearing upon the Petition are those of children of tender years; that some of the persons whose names appear thereupon repudiate the signatures attributed to them, and declare their disagreement with the opinions expressed by the Petition; that, in some instances, children have been persuaded to write the names of their parents upon the Petition without the knowledge or consent of the parents; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Committee proposes to institute a searching inquiry into this and similar Petitions?

, in reply, said, that some of the signatures to the Petition referred to by the hon. Member were those of children of tender years; but it was not proposed to institute an inquiry.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fact that the evidence before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Loss of Life at Sea was closed already some nine months ago; whether any meetings of the Commissioners have since been held; and, whether the Report of said Commission has been drawn up; and, if so, when it will be laid before the House?

The Chairman of the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea informs me that their proceedings were suspended during the winter by the absence abroad of two of its most important Members. The Commission have since met for the consideration of their Report, which they hope may be concluded shortly after Whitsuntide.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mr. King, of Mere Road, New Evington, in the County of Leicester, recently wrote to him appealing for remission of a fine inflicted by the County Magistrates on account of the non-vaccination of a child, dead nearly 12 months before the fine was enforced; and, whether he will state what answer has been given to this appeal?

(who replied) said: the Secretary of State did receive an application from Mr. King, and, after carefully inquiring into this case, answered that he was unable to interfere. King had been convicted and fined for not complying with the law. The fact that the child died before the vaccination officer, after repeated applications, proceeded to enforce the fine does not alter the liability of Mr. King.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why there are no Nonconformist Magistrates in Flintshire?

(who replied) said: I can only repeat, Sir, the answer which the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Baronet on April 4—that the Lord Lieutenant was not able to ascertain that there were any Nonconformists resident in Flintshire with the necessary qualifications.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Corporation of Plymouth are making a road round the Citadel Fort there in such a way as to deprive the troops quartered in it of their bathing place, and that there is no other place in Plymouth suitable for such a purpose; whether he will take immediate steps to prevent the men being deprived of the only bathing they can get in the summer months; and, whether it is true that the Government have handed over the whole of the ramparts and outworks of the fort to the Corporation of Plymouth?

(who replied) said: The road referred to does not debar the troops from access to their bathing place; but it renders it more visible to the public than it formerly was. The General Officer Commanding is considering, in conjunction with the Corporation, the arrangements to be made for the troops bathing. The outworks of the Citadel Fort have been leased to the Corporation; but not the ramparts.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that Her Majesty's guardship lying at Queensferry (within a few miles of the Salamanan Coalfields) is supplied with coal from Wales, costing a very much higher price; whether it is the case that the Admiralty tried coal from Scotland in 1876, and reported that it was found nearly equal to the best Welsh coal; and, whether he will take steps to put a stop to this apparent waste of public money?

It is the case that the guardship in question has been supplied with Welsh coal, which cost 13s. per ton alongside. The Scotch coal would cost less, but how much less cannot be stated, as no actual purchase of a large quantity has been made. The Admiralty tried coal from Scotland, as stated in the Question; but it was not found nearly equal to the best Welsh coal. The Welsh coal has the great advantage of being smokeless, and not choking the flues, neither of which qualities pertain to the Scotch coal.

asked, if the 13s. per ton included the carriage of the coal round from Wales to the Forth?

said, it included the carriage.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true, as stated in an American paper, that—

"The presence of our soldiers in Burmah is made the reason for the licensing and regulating of vice, under the charge of high officials?"

(who replied) said: The Secretary of State does not concur in the expression of opinion extracted from the American paper. Certain sanitary arrangements were made; but that does not constitute a licensing and regulation of vice.

said, he did not put it as a matter of opinion, but as a fact. He would put the Question again in plainer words next Monday.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he is in a position to make any statement as to the course of Business after the Third Reading of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, and, more particularly, if he can state whether the Government intends to adopt any, and, if any, what, means to enable the House to overtake this year a fair proportion of the ordinary Legislative Business of the country?

I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that I am unable to make any statement with regard to the progress of Public Business after the Third Reading of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will use his influence to forward that Bill. Until that Bill has reached a stage at which I can really hope for the Third Reading I will be quite unable to make any statement with regard to the Business, It is our desire to push forward Public Business, other than the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, as rapidly as possible.

asked, whether the Government intended to regard the passing of that Bill as the special legislative work of the Session; or whether it was their intention to consider some other means whereby the ordinary Legislative Business of the country might be in part attended to, at whatever date the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill might pass?

Undoubtedly the Government do not consider that the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill would be a sufficient discharge of the duties of Parliament; and it will be their duty to consider what course they will recommend to Parliament under the circumstances.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee in London in any public manner?

asked, Whether the Government would reconsider their decision with regard to the display of fireworks in the public Parks, considering the pleasure they would give to hundreds of thousands of the people of the Metropolis?

In answer to the last Question, which has been put to me without Notice, I can only say this—that the Government regret that any portion of the community should be deprived of any pleasure of the kind to which the hon. Member refers; and if funds could be found which would not be a charge upon the public purse, the Government would be exceedingly happy to afford any facility for the purpose; but they have not thought it right to submit a Vote to Parliament in order that the inhabitants of the Metropolis might be provided with fireworks. If we were to make such provision for the Metropolis, it would at once be asked what are we going to do for the large Provincial towns. I may be asked what provision we desire to make in other respects. That is a difficulty which I am sure the House will feel could not be easily solved. A Proclamation has been issued declaring Tuesday, June 21, a public holiday. On that day Her Majesty will proceed to the Service at Westminster Abbey. Any other celebration of the day will be entirely of a spontaneous and local character, no provision having been proposed to Parliament for public rejoicings in any other way.

Will hon. Members have the opportunity of attending the Service at the Abbey on that day?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will ask the Poet Laureate to prepare an ode on the Jubilee Coercion Bill for the occasion?

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is trifling with the House.

I hope to make arrangements by which Members of Parliament who express a wish to be present will be able to attend.

Will that include the Irish Members?

Will each Member be allowed to take a lady?

The Lord Chamberlain is the proper officer to approach in regard to such matters.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask you what arrangements you propose to make with reference to the attendance of the House on Sunday at St. Margaret's Church?

In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to inform the House that I propose to take my seat at that (the Clerk's) Table at a quarter to 11 on Sunday, and that I shall then go down the House to that door (under the clock). I hope that the Members of the Government, the Members of the Front Opposition Bench, Privy Councillors, and others who hap- pen to be in the House will form behind me, so as to constitute the head of the procession. The Mace will meet me at the folding doors. I shall then proceed through the Members' Lobby to the Central Lobby, during which time I hope Members will fall in and form the rest of the procession. I would earnestly entreat hon. Members to observe the formation of four abreast. The Volunteers will keep a line which will admit of that number walking side by side. It will be very important that order should be kept throughout. From the Central Lobby I propose to go down St. Stephen's Hall to the top of the stairs in Westminster Hall, and thence down the main stairs of Westminster Hall to the north door of that Hall. At that door I believe that the clergy of Westminster Abbey and St. Margaret's Church will meet the procession and form the head of it. I shall then go through Palace Yard, through Parliament Square, through the central portion of that Square, between the two flower beds, and on reaching the end of the walk I shall take a line diagonally to the west door of St. Margaret's Church. I may say, perhaps, that the Queen's Westminster Volunteers have undertaken to furnish a guard of honour, and to keep the line throughout the whole length of the route taken by the procession; and I think I may tender to that gallant corps, on behalf of the House, my thanks for their presence on the occasion, and especially to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent), the Colonel of that corps. If there is any other information which I can impart to the House I shall be very happy to give it.

What arrangements are there for meeting our ladies on this occasion? Ladies' tickets have been issued.

I am scarcely responsible for all the minor details; but to allay the natural anxiety of the hon. Member I would, if I may, strongly advise the ladies to be present in St. Margaret's Church before the procession leaves this House.

Is it in contemplation to take a Resolution of the House in the sense which you, Sir, have mentioned, according to the precedent when Mr. Speaker attended on behalf of the House at the Thanksgiving Service at St. Paul's?

The House has already passed a Resolution.

asked, what arrangements had been made for the attendance of the House at the ceremony in Westminster Abbey on the 21st of June?

I understand that ample provision has been made by the Lord Chamberlain for the accommodation of the House on the 21st of June. But it is usual for a Committee of the House to be appointed to assist the Speaker in making the necessary arrangements for such an occasion; and if it is the pleasure of the House I will on Monday propose the appointment of such a Committee.

Will the House sit on the 21st of June?

It will be a public holiday, Sir; and I shall move the adjournment of the House over that day.

If the weather is unsatisfactory on Sunday, Mr. Speaker, will omnibuses be provided for Members?

I will not answer a Question which I regard as trivial and offensive.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have been earnestly solicited by the Government of the Dominion to grant a subsidy to the Canadian Pacific Railway; and, whether, in giving this request their consideration, Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind the action of the Government of the Dominion in raising the duty upon imported iron, and will also endeavour to have an estimate made of the loss to those engaged in the iron export trade of this country which such increase of duty will entail?

The Dominion Government has earnestly solicited Her Majesty's Government to grant a subsidy to a line of steamers which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is willing to establish between Vancouver and Hong Kong. It is not suggested that such subsidy should be given as an assistance to the railway; but the proposed steamship service is being considered on its own merits, the question being whether the advantages to this country and to the Empire generally of maintaining an efficient service of powerful vessels in the North Pacific will justify an application to Parliament for an annual subsidy of not less than £45,000. It has not been the practice to look upon the high tariffs which Canada finds it necessary to adopt as directly affecting the consideration of any general question in which the point arises whether or how far this country should cooperate with the Dominion; but Her Majesty's Government cannot but feel that a change in the Canadian duties, such as that alleged, must indirectly affect the consideration of the main question, which must be ultimately decided by Parliament.

In supporting the Amendment I desire to point out that we have already decided that it is a criminal conspiracy for anyone "to compel or induce any person or persons not to fulfil his or their legal obligations." We now come to a very distinct and separate question, whether it shall be a criminal conspiracy to compel or induce any person or persons—

"Not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persona in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation."

The Amendment is a different one from that which we had under consideration yesterday; but, at the same time, it would seem that the principle which governed the Committee in disposing of the Amendment yesterday should influence it now in disposing of this Amendment. It seems to the Government that the same arguments that were used yesterday are equally applicable to this Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) moved words yesterday to provide that any person who should "conspire by violence or intimidation" to do the things specified in the sub-section should be liable to the penalties of the clause, and another hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. T. Reid) moved to leave out the word "induce," in order to confine the section to persons who compelled others to do the things specified therein. The Committee rejected both those Amendments yesterday, and the same grounds which led the Committee to reject them ought to lead it to-day to reject the present Amendment, inasmuch as its object is to limit the action of the subsection—not in regard to the fulfilment of legal obligations, as was the case with the Amendment yesterday, but in regard to letting, hiring, using, or occupying land, and so on—to persons who compel others by means of "threats, intimidation, or violence." What we propose to do in the section is not to alter the law in the smallest degree from what it is now, but to enact that those means which apply now to the attaining of an object could be punished under indictment as criminal conspiracy shall, under this Act, be punished by summary jurisdiction. Such a case as that referred to by the hon. Member—the case of agreeing to induce a person to make a will—could not be punished under indictment, and will not be touched by this measure,

I did not speak of the persons being punished; but I said would anyone say that the will would become void through adopting the means employed in this agreement?

No; it would not; neither would an agreement to induce a person by moral suasion to refuse to let, hire, use, or occupy land be a criminal conspiracy. It would not be a criminal conspiracy now, neither would it be a criminal conspiracy under the Bill, because, as I have pointed out, the clause only renders punishable by summary jurisdiction what is now punishable by means of indictment. The hon. Member says that if we pass the clause as it now stands you will make it a criminal offence, punishable by summary jurisdiction, to agree to induce a person to attain a lawful object; but that is not the fact, for it is not an offence punishable by indictment at the present time to combine to effect a legal object by legitimate means.

There is a great distinction between the object of obtaining the non-fulfilment of a legal obligation and the object of obtaining the non-performance of an act that a person is perfectly entitled not to do. There is no obligation pre-existing as the hiring of land. We are told that this clause will not make it criminal to do any act which is not criminal already; but that I altogether deny. A criminal conspiracy is to agree to adopt means to attain an object, either one of which must be criminal—either the means or the object. But, under this clause, to agree to attain by legal means—that is to say, by inducement—a lawful object may be made a criminal conspiracy. No one denies that we have these three things under the clause—agreement, means, and object. Inducement is laid down as the means. What question can arise outside the limits of these three things I utterly fail to conceive. We are told that an Amendment has been introduced and accepted by the Committee which will prevent a new offence being created under this Act. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) will take the trouble to refer to Mr. Justice Stephen on Criminal Law Amendment, or to the same autho- rity on Conspiracy, as given in pages 124 and 125 of Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, he will there learn that, in the opinion of Mr. Justice Stephen, reasons must be found by the Judge for declaring it to be criminal to combine to do an act which, in the opinion of the Judge, is politically or socially dangerous. And yet you are giving powers to two nominees of the Government, and investing them with the powers which Mr. Justice Stephen says the Judges already possess. Any combination which the Judge declares to be criminal is already punishable by law. By this Bill you are making the Resident Magistrates Judges, and giving them despotic power to declare an agreement criminal, and you point out clearly that a combination or an agreement to induce a person not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land is a criminal conspiracy.

If this Amendment had been in principle decided, or came close to being decided, by the determination which the Committee arrived at yesterday, it would not be necessary for me to trouble the Committee much upon this question, because I should not be able to bring myself to repeat an argument with reference to it. Such repetition only weakens the position of a speaker in a case like this. On the other hand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, I think, rather underrated the argument of my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance), and did not sufficiently appreciate the distinction he wishes to point out. But, whether there is or not a distinction to be drawn between the 1st and 2nd parts of the sub-section, I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this clause will have a serious effect upon the Ulster Tenant Right Custom which has prevailed for the past 100 years. The Ulster tenants have combined to refuse to take farms where the tenant right was not adequately recognized by the landlord; and clearly the sub-section under discussion, as it now stands, would render such combination a criminal conspiracy in the view of any Resident Magistrate who chose so to construe the provision. I cannot allow to pass without protest anything which would cast upon Ulster the stain that its tenants have been living in a criminal conspiracy for the past 100 years. I have known cases in Ulster in which farms have laid vacant for 20 years in consequence of refusal to recognize the tenant-right custom. I have known a case where a Protestant has been evicted from a farm in a Catholic district, and a foot would not be put into it by a Catholic farmer; and I have known a Catholic evicted in a Protestant district with a precisely similar result. I have known farms, under these circumstances, lie idle for 20 or 30 years, the owner merely disposing of the grazing of it. But few persons were mad enough to refuse the Ulster tenant right in the face of such a spirit as that. Then, what will happen now when evictions take place, and the landlord assumes possession of the land, the tenant forfeiting for a year's rent his 15 years' possession? The landlord will have 14 years of another man's property, and he will probably desire to get the land in occupation again to his own advantage. Whatever your laws may be, there will, certainly be a higher law—that of honour and respect for another man's property, which will never be broken by the people of Ireland. What is the use of passing Criminal Laws to make men do a certain thing, which, though not criminal according to the law, is far more criminal in their eyes than that which this measure would make criminal, and which involves a greater penalty, from a social point of view, than the breaking of the law? I wish to draw a clear distinction between the decision we arrived at yesterday and the point raised to-day. I think the hon. Gentleman who put down the present Amendment was well advised. I believe I am correct that the hon. Member took the advice of those most able and experienced in these matters before moving the Amendment as to the form in which it should be brought forward. I admire the ingenuity with which he tried to reconcile his Conservative principles with what I consider his kind heart, for he has shown himself kind-hearted in this matter—he, at least, has been in Ireland and knows what we are. It is an extraordinary thing that we should now be supporting an Amendment moved from the other side of the House. I can understand the Committee saying that it is a conspiracy to induce a man not to do a thing which he is under obligation to do, and which a third person has a right to have performed. In that case there is a duty on one hand, and a right on the other; and if a conspiracy is got up to break the relations of the two men mutually bound to each other, there is some argument to be offered for making it criminal, because the conspirators would be without a reasonable excuse. But take the case of a farm which is vacant. There is no obligation on anyone to take it. A man may be induced not to take it, and pressure may be put upon him to refrain from taking it. The farmer primâ facie may do what he likes with the farm; he may accept a person as tenant, or refuse him, just as he likes, and no one can complain; and equally the person sought to be induced or persuaded has incurred no duty with regard to its acceptance or refusal, and the person who induces or persuades him clearly should not be held criminal. It is a different thing where, in the words of the Amendment, a person is "compelled" by means of "threats, intimidation, or violence," not to take a farm. There is an obvious distinction between the 1st and 2nd part of the sub-section. In the one case a person is prevented from fulfilling a legal obligation. A man is compelled to do that which it is a breach of duty to do, and which it is a breach of another man's right to have done; and there may be some ground for calling that a criminal conspiracy. In the other case, you suppose a man who has a farm, which he has a right to let in the best way he can, but there is no duty on the community to take it, nor is there any obligation on any individual to do so, therefore there is no breach of any right of the landlord. But to go further than that, though the Amendment deals only with the question of land, there are many cases where it is the duty and right of a man to induce others not to buy at a particular time, or sell at a particular time, and to put up prices at a particular time. This right is recognized in England, and I must say I do not believe the commercial prosperity of England would have been at all what it is to-day if you had put shackles on the right of trade combinations. I only rise, however, to distinguish between the two parts of the sub-section—namely, the fulfilling of legal obligations—which we dealt with yesterday—and the taking of land with regard to which no legal obligation exists. To my own knowledge, the Ulster tenant right has been preserved by a practice which I firmly believe, if this law had been passed years ago, would have been held to be criminal, and would have had the effect of throwing one-half of the tenant farmers of the Province into gaol.

I think that having regard to the quarter from which this Amendment comes the Government have received it with very scant courtesy. It would, indeed, be a curious result to see the clôture applied to it by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; but we may take it, having regard as I say to the quarter whence it come, that the right hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to take that course. I agree with my hon. Friends that we are forced to support this Amendment by the decision of the Committee last night on the proposal to omit the words "or induce." I think it is perfectly plain that there is a substantial distinction, not merely of form, but of fact, between the present Amendment and that moved last night by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). The Attorney General for Ireland tells us that what is intended to be struck at by this clause is the use of illegal means. He says that this clause will not be operative in the case of any innocent combination, and that unless the means which any body of men combining together take to effect this object are illegal, this clause will not apply. I meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that ground, and I ask, if it is his view that this Bill should not apply save in a case where illegal means are used to further the object of conspiracy, will he consent to insert in the sub-section now under discussion, after the word "induce," not, perhaps, the words proposed in the Amendment, but words which will carry out his own expressed intention? Will he accept such words as "or induce by illegal means?" He says he does not want to limit the clause in the manner pointed out in the Amendment of one of his supporters. He says he does not want to limit it to threats, intimidation, or violence. Let him, at any rate, take means to carry out his own view, and to make his declaration perfectly plain. Let him put something in the Act of Parliament by which the uninstructed Resident Magistrates, who will have the administration of this clause, will see plainly what the Government want. I think we are entitled to an answer on that point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says it is not intended that this Act should strike at any combinations to induce any persons by illegal means to do a legal act; and that being so, I ask them to embody in the words of this clause some expression which will make their intention perfectly plain, and from which the Resident Magistrates, who will afterwards be the administrators of the new law, will have the conclusion of the Government forced on them that this section is only to be used where there has been a conspiracy to induce persons to do an illegal act, or to induce persons to do a legal act by illegal means.

I think the hon. Gentleman, like his predecessors, is travelling rather beyond the permissible scope of this Amendment. The Committee have already refused to admit the words "or induce," and also to define conspiracy "by violence or intimidation." Those two principles govern nearly the whole of the section, and the present Amendment is only admissible on the argument that in dealing with land there is a special necessity for the making of a definition.

On the point of Order I should like to point out that the Amendment to strike out the words "or induce "had reference to preventing a person from fulfilling a legal obligation.

No; that is not so. The words "compel or induce" govern the whole section.

I quite accept that explanation from you, Sir. It is quite evident, however, that the words this Amendment proposes to introduce only seek to govern the words of the section which deal with the letting, hiring, using, or occupying of land. We agree upon that, and I was under the impression that what I was saying, though general in its character, had a particular application to conspiracies as affecting dealings with regard to land. I come now to the words conspiracy to induce a person "not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land." What is the motive of these words—what is the meaning of this section which the Government have introduced in the Bill? On what ground have they based the necessity for this clause? The motive power the Government have used to press this Bill through the House is the undue intimidation as to the letting, hiring, or selling of land which they say has prevailed in Ireland. I venture to say that without the allegations they have made in regard to this undue intimidation a Bill of this kind would have been scouted from this House and this country. And, that being so, I ask is it not monstrous that while their whole case is founded on allegations of intimidation, they should push this Bill a step further than the extent to which their case of intimidation would chow it to be necessary? If their ease is that it is owing to intimidation that farms cannot be let, and that tenants combine to obtain reductions of rent, and their case is that it is owing to intimidation that combinations for these purposes, which would not otherwise exist, are so powerful in Ireland, I say, then, why not limit the clause to that particular point? I maintain that without the impetus that this Bill receives from these allegations of intimidation, it would have been impossible for the Government to have introduced it in this House, and it would be impossible for them to defend it before the country. At any rate, before they can ask the Committee to extend the Bill on the provisions of this clause beyond this question of intimidation, they are bound to make out a specific case outside "threats, intimidation, and violence," for the necessity of such extension. They have not attempted to do anything of the kind. They have not attempted to show that, apart from threats, intimidation, or violence, there are things which make such a clause reasonable. In all the wildest appeals we have heard from the opposite side of the House—and we have heard some most reckless assertions from that quarter as to the condition of Ireland—there has not been a single attempt to show that, apart from the question of intimidation, any case for this clause exists. If that is the case, are we not justified in asking that the Government, who found this Bill on allegations of the existence of intimidation—and found it on nothing else, for we are told that they do not rely on statistics of crime—shall limit it to the particular matter they allege as its origin? I do not think the Government are treating us fairly in this matter. We are not content with their general allegation as to the necessity for making this clause wide enough to introduce every possible class of offence. They do not even prove the existence of offences such as this Amendment will deal with. It seems to me, when such enormous powers are given and confirmed by a Bill of this kind, the Government are bound to produce justification, not merely for every clause of it, but for every line, every word, and every syllable it contains. Liberty should not be restricted, the Constitution should not be cut in upon, except to the extent for which a case been made out for it. If the Government complain that offences of a particular character exist, I submit that any remedy that Parliament applies should be limited to the case they make out. It is an old maxim in connection with the construction of Acts of Parliament that, in order to find out the object of an Act, you ought first to learn the mischief with which it is intended to deal. Now, I maintain that the remedy this clause provides is not limited to the mischief of which the Government complain. My complaint is that they extend the remedy far beyond any mischief they allege, and make it wide enough to include a vast variety of cases in regard to which they have shown no necessity for the clause. I say, therefore, if the words "or induce" had been left out of the clause, the section would have been sufficiently stringent to effect the avowed object of the Government. The Government case is amply vindicated by the adoption of the word "compel," and I think, if the section were limited to that word, the answer given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would be complete. But so long as they continue to retain in the section the use of the words "or induce," involving and describing acts which are not in themselves criminal, we shall be warranted in asking that where the object in view is not illegal, and where the conspiracy is a mere conspiracy to induce persons to do or not to do what it is perfectly legal for them to do or not to do, that then, at any rate, the House will step in and provide that some illegality shall be pointed to in the means taken to effect the object before the clause shall pass in its present form. If the Government can make out a case for anything beyond what is in this Amendment, let them make it out; but certainly, up to the present, they have not attempted to do so. Until they have done so, I hold that we are justified in asking the Committee to limit the application of the clause.

The Amendment, as it stands on the Paper, reads—"To compel any person or persons, by means of threats, intimidation, or violence." I fear that if we insist upon this Amendment, we shall be told that modification of this part of the section was refused, because we wished to confine it to threats, intimidation, or violence. I would ask to leave out of the Amendment the words "by means of threats, intimidation, or violence." We shall have a distinct issue then as to whether to compel a person to do or not to do what he has a perfectly legal right to do or not to do shall be rendered criminal or not. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that the word "induce" in this section is distinctly a description of method and means, and that the object not being in itself criminal, and it being necessary that the criminality should be found in the means here stated, the word "compel," and not "induce," should apply. If the clause is passed without this alteration, it will be for the first time the erection of a combination to induce persons to attain an object which is lawful into a criminal conspiracy. I would ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland whether it is contended that the words "or induce" do not constitute a description of the means and method of the object of a conspiracy? I do trust the Attorney General for England will deal with that question.