asked the President of the Local Government Board, How many persons received parochial relief in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, in the year ending 31st December, 1886, and the number in each country of indoor and of outdoor paupers?

I am unable to state how many persons received parochial relief in England, Wales, and Scotland respectively during the year ending December 31, 1886. As regards England and Wales, it is the practice of the Local Government Board to obtain Returns of the numbers of paupers on certain days only. On January 1 last there were 822,215 paupers in the country in receipt of relief, of whom 201,698 were indoor and 620,517 outdoor paupers. With respect to Scotland, I am informed by the Board of Supervision that, on January 14 last, the total number of paupers, registered and casual, including dependents, receiving relief was 99,734; and that on January 1 last the total number in poor-houses was 10,233. The Local Government Board for Ireland state that, according to the Returns for the week ended January 1, 1887, the total number of persons in receipt of relief on that day was 113,241, of whom 65,015 received outdoor relief, 47,477 were in workhouses, and 749 in blind, deaf, and dumb asylums.

I propose, in the first line of this clause, to move the omission of the words "The Lord Lieutenant by and with the advice of the Privy Council," in order to insert "Her Majesty by Order in Council." The effect will be to provide that the proclamation of districts under the Act should be made by Her Majesty in Council instead of by the Lord Lieutenant. The Government are proposing to deprive a majority of Her Majesty's subjects of their Constitutional privileges, and the change involves so grave an exercise of authority that the responsibility of it should rest with the Cabinet as a whole, and not with the Lord Lieutenant. It is said that the Lord Lieutenant is responsible to Parliament; but his responsibility is very different from that of the Government, as a whole, defending its action in this House. The permanent officials of Dublin Castle, by whom the Act will be administered, are not in sympathy either with the people of Ireland or this House, and I should like to see a Ministry responsible to Parliament for the administration of such an Act.

I quite sympathize with the right hon. Gentleman in his effort to attach as much solemnity to Proclamations as possible. But I do not think, on the whole, a sufficient case has been made out for the Amendment. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the Government collectively are responsible, and in the present condition of Irish affairs, every important act is carefully considered by the Government as a whole. The Irish Secretary is undoubtedly primarily responsible, and the acceptance of the Amendment would take away the initiative of the Irish Secretary. I am not, therefore, prepared to depart from the precedent of a largo number of years.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has admitted the responsibility of the Cabinet. Why, then, should not their responsibility be acknowledged on the face of a Proclamation? The Amendment may be contrary to precedent, but that by no means constitutes a conclusive argument against it, because the precedents made by the Irish Government in the past have all been bad, and the less they are followed the better. Liberal Unionists who on past occasions have not hesitated to condemn the "Castle," ought to support the Amendment, because it will to a certain extent transfer responsibility from the Castle to the Government.

I should like to have a distinct answer to the following Question. Is there a separate Cabinet for the management of Irish affairs? The Irish Privy Council is largely composed of Judges, and we have the statement of Chief Justice Morris that the judicial members of the Council never take any part in instituting or advising criminal prosecutions. By whom, then, are these duties performed? By the residuum of the Council, by men like The O'Conor Don, Mr. Bruen, and Mr. Kavanagh, who have been defeated at the polls by Nationalist Members. Every vile scheme that disgraced England's rule of Ireland in the 18th century was hatched in the Irish Privy Council. I hope that in future there will be no divided responsibility for the advice given to and the action taken by the Privy Council in Ireland.

I think the Amendment is extremely important, and it ought, I hold, to command the support of all Unionists, because its adoption would emphasize the unity of the Three Kingdoms. The liberties of the people in any part of the country ought not to be taken away by an inferior authority. Responsibility for what is done in Ireland under this Bill ought therefore to rest upon Her Majesty's Privy Council. Proclamations issued by the Lord Lieutenant in Council will be less likely to attract attention than Proclamations issued by the Privy Council in England. As it is of great importance that the Proclamations should be as public as possible, in order that they may be discussed and criticized, they ought to issue from the English Privy Council.

The object of the Amendment is to prevent the Irish Privy Council from acquiring extra powers. At present reprehensible things are done every day in Ireland by persons connected with the Executive, and when Questions have been asked in this House with reference to them, they have been met with lying and evasive answers. I do not mean that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who road the answers out are guilty of falsehood and evasion, but the answers themselves are correctly described by the epithets which I have applied to them. They are generally obtained by the authorities in Dublin from the very persons whose conduct has been impugned.

This Amendment will not really affect the administration of the Act; and I would, therefore, put it to hon. Members opposite whether it is not desirable to go to a Division at once without further delay, so that other and more important points may be discussed?

If this Amendment would make no difference in the administration of the Act, the Government ought to accept it. Since the Government have now decided to Report the Bill on a certain day, I hope that the closure will now be dropped, and that hon. Members will be saved the trouble of tramping into the Division Lobby on the Motion "That the Question be now put."

As there is only a limited quantity of time left to be spent in the consideration of this Bill in Committee, it would be well to expend that time on points of importance that require consideration. Under the circumstances there appears to be considerable force in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, with regard to the closure. Those who unduly prolong the debate will do so at their own cost.

The Government are prepared to accede, as far as possible, to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) enforced by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The Government desire to abstain from enforcing the closure at all times, and especially under the present circumstances. There are some points of considerable importance that have still to be discussed, and which the Government are most anxious to have discussed. But if unimportant Amendments are debated at length there will be no time to consider these important points. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentlemen would consider what they regard as the really important points with a view to having them fully discussed.

I am of the same opinion as when I moved the Amendment; but I do not desire that it should occupy any more time; and, as it was of no use going to a Division, I will ask leave to withdraw it.

I and my hon. Friends are quite competent to judge what are important Amendments; and within the miserable and inadequate space of time yet remaining, we ought to be allowed to discuss such Amendments as we choose, and at such length as we choose. We refused altogether to take the opinion of the Treasury Bench as to what are important Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has invited us to proceed to what he terms the important points in the Bill; but it is well known that the Government will not make any concession on those points, and the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is therefore merely to proceed to full-dress parade debates, from which the Irish Members will gain nothing whatever. We have not hitherto obstructed this measure, and we shall not do so in the future; but we shall continue to contest it, as we have contested it in the past, with a view to getting such concessions as we can. The fact that the Bill is to be reported on a certain day will have no effect whatever in altering our course.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has not suggested that the Members on this side of the House should assist the Government in debating what the Treasury Bench may consider the important principles of the Bill. We, on this Bench, agree entirely with the observations that have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). This is a Bill which chiefly concerns Ireland, and upon which Irish Members have a special right to speak, upon which the opinions of Irish Members are more important than those of English Members. We have no sort of intention of subscribing to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the two Front Benches should settle what are the important Amendments to be discussed, and what are not, and that then we, on this Bench, should be called upon to advise the Irish Members below the Gangway to agree only' to discuss such important Amendments. The suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian rather was that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, in the short and artificially limited time remaining, should use it in discussing such Amendments as they themselves, and not the Government, consider to be essential.

There are two reasons why the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and they are reasons the force of which will, I think, be admitted by the hon. Member himself. In the first place, I doubt whether an inquiry like that suggested by the hon. Member would be possible, as the Judge would have no power in examining witnesses to administer an oath. The responsibility of proclaiming a district must, of course, rest upon the Executive, and by this clause power is given to the Lord Lieutenant to issue a Proclamation, ''by and with the advice of the Privy Council," whenever it may appear to him necessary to put the powers of the Act into force. I think the Committee will be agreed that the whole of the Government, including the Cabinet, should be responsible for the issue of the Proclamation. If, instead of proclaiming a district on the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant, an inquiry of this nature were instituted, directing the Judge of the High Court to examine the facts, and to report to the Executive that a particular district ought to be proclaimed, the Executive would have no alternative but to act upon the Judge's Report, and the responsibility for what is purely an Executive act would be taken from the Executive altogether and placed upon the Judge. The Lord Lieutenant would naturally say that in proclaiming a district he had acted upon a Judicial Report, that he was not ac- quainted with the facts himself, and that he threw the whole responsibility upon the learned Judge who inquired into the matter. Upon all these considerations, I think it would be undesirable to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member.

I certainly cannot appreciate the force of the reasons which, have been given by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland for opposing the Amendment. He says that a learned Judge would have no power to examine witnesses or administer an oath, and, therefore, that his advice would be of no value. But can the Lord Lieutenant examine witnesses on oath? The Lord Lieutenant, of his own free will, will be able, under this clause, to proclaim a county or district when and how he likes, and so far as evidence of the existence of criminality is concerned, it will not be necessary at all that he should form an accurate opinion. The Attorney General has let the cat of the bag, because whatever information can be supplied to the Lord Lieutenant could equally be supplied to the Lord Lieutenant by a Judge, and my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment, because he thinks that a Judge would be more capable of examining into the matter than the Lord Lieutenant. It must be recollected that a Judge, when he is elevated to the Bench, ceases any longer to belong to a political Party, whereas the Lord Lieutenant is the direct Representative of a political Party—namely, the Party which may happen, at the moment, to be in power. He is always a Member of the Cabinet, and the proposed reference in the clause to the Privy Council is one of those myths with which we are occasionally indulged in this House. What is a Privy Council? It is a close borough.

Order, order! The hon. Member is travelling somewhat wide of the Amendment.

The alternative given in this clause is that the Lord Lieutenant is to do certain things "by and with the advice of the Privy Council," and it was only in that sense that I presumed to call attention to the matter. I will, however, go no further, but will simply point to an analogous case—namely, that of Wales. There is no Lord Lieutenant in Wales, but there have been disturbances in Wales recently in reference to tithes, which disturbances have been somewhat similar in their character to those which have occurred in Ireland in reference to rent. What would the House say if a proposition were made by the Prime Minister that "by and with the advice of the Privy Council," the Government should have the power of proclaiming a district without submitting the evidence as to the existence and criminality to any properly constituted Court of Inquiry?

The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has assigned a curious reason for the decision he has come to. He says it would be impossible for a Judge to take steps to arrive at any reliable opinion, because he cannot examine witnesses on oath.

I did not say that a learned Judge could not arrive at a reliable opinion, but I said that if such an inquiry were held, he would not have the power of examining witnesses upon oath, and that his report would relieve the Government from their responsibility.

I presume that any judicial inquiry is an inquiry by a Judge, and I fail to see why a Judge should not be as able to institute an inquiry into the state of a district as into any other matter. The principal argument for the introduction of the Bill at all was that the Government relied almost exclusively upon the Judges' charges. If that be so, how can they now say that an investigation by a Judge would fail to satisfy either the public or the Lord Lieutenant or the Judge himself? It is utterly impossible to reconcile the two sets of statements. the right hon. and learned Gentleman says the adoption of the Amendment would shift the responsibility from the Executive on to the Judge. That is the very thing that would be valuable. We know very well what value to attach to the phrase "the responsibility of the Irish Executive." I am afraid that they are not much troubled with notions of responsibility, but feel chiefly responsible to their own ideas and their own animosities. That is quite enough to satisfy them without having the slightest regard for the world outside. A Judge, however, is in a very different position. He has a reputation to sustain, and he would be slow to give a decision as to the existence of a state of criminality in a particular locality unless, in his opinion, there was a good deal to justify that decision. Then, again, a Judge would, in all probability, have been for some time in office, and would have acquired habits of impartiality. Whereas, the Lord Lieutenant or the authorities in Dublin Castle have certainly not strengthened their impartiality by the way in which they have acted. One-sidedness is the quality which their position tends most to intensify. For these reasons, I am more convinced than ever that there must be something valuable in the Amendment, in consequence of the inconclusive arguments advanced by the right hon. and learned Attorney General—arguments which are entirely at variance with the grounds upon which the Government profess to justify the introduction of their Bill. Their plea for the necessity of a Bill of this kind at all was that, in the opinion of the Judges, a considerable amount of crimiminality existed in certain parts of the country.

I think that my hon. Friend has been somewhat too severe on the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, who feels it his duty at all times to support the administration of Dublin Castle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that if there were a judicial inquiry by a Judge, and his Report was to the effect that no crime existed, that then the Lord Lieutenant could not proclaim the district, but that if the Judge did report the existence of criminality, however undesirable it might be politically the Lord Lieutenant would be left no alternative, but would be bound to proclaim the district. I can quite understand, therefore, the object with which the right hon. and learned Attorney General and the Government object to this Amendment, for I can fully see that the liability to obey the direction of a Judge might, in some cases, be extremely inconvenient. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) or some of his allies going to Ireland and declaring at an election time that South Tyrone was in a shaky condition, and that, therefore, the district had better be proclaimed with the usual accompaniment of batoning the people and running them into gaol for a few weeks until it might be possible to tide over the election. I have no doubt this would be a very convenient arrangement for the purpose of carrying a eon-tested election, or even to secure the appointment of guardians of the poor and so on. I therefore think that the hon. and learned Attorney General, from his point of view, has acted with extreme wisdom in objecting to the Amendment; but I think it would have been more manly and straightforward if he had given the real ground for desiring to retain the clause as it stands—namely, that he may be able to use it hereafter for political purposes.

I cannot help thinking that there is something extremely suspicious about the refusal of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to allow a Judge to inquire into the state of a district before it is proclaimed. I can quite conceive why the Government refuse to accept this Amendment, the adoption of which would give the Irish people the satisfaction of knowing that if a district is to be proclaimed it will not be proclaimed in a haphazard manner according to back stairs information supplied to the Lord Lieutenant by interested parties, but that no district will be proclaimed without a Judge having first decided that there was a state of disturbance in the district which warranted its Proclamation. The simple difference between us as to the Amendment is this—that if the Amendment is accepted we shall all have the satisfaction of knowing that there must be an inquiry before a district is proclaimed, whereas if the Amendment is refused there will be no inquiry at all. If the Government were animated by fair and upright motives they would accept the Amendment, knowing very well that if an inquiry were held it would at least satisfy the public that there was an excuse for the Proclamation of a district, and more than that—if a district is proclaimed in Ireland Her Majesty's Advisers would be able to say to the people of England that the course taken was justifiable. They would be able to say—"It is quite true that we have been obliged to proclaim this district, but we did not do it until an inquiry was held, which inquiry was presided over by a Judge of the High Court, and we have his certificate that the district is in such a condition as to require its Proclamation." If the real object of the Government were to put down crime and outrage they would not object to a Court of Inquiry; but, as a matter of fact, they do not wish to proclaim districts in Ireland because of the existence of crime and outrage, but simply in order that they may strike political opponents and combinations of tenants against harsh landlords. They desire to retain in the hands of the Executive, and of the advisors of the Executive, the power of proclaiming a district from private motives without the slightest regard to the existence of crime and outrage. I think we have proved quite sufficient, in this discussion, to show that what the Government are aiming at is not the Proclamation of a district on account of the existence within it of crime and outrage, but to put down lawful and legitimate combination. If it were otherwise they would not refuse this Amendment. But they know that the result of an inquiry, in almost every case, would be that the district would not be proclaimed. Of course, that would not suit the Government, because they wish to retain in the hands of Dublin Castle the right of doing this without reference to a judicial decision of any kind. I am glad that the Government have refused the Amendment, because it clearly shows what it is that they are really desirous of striking against. I think there is no hon. Member representing an English constituency who will not say that our request is fair and reasonable, and that the Government are unreasonable in refusing it.

I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) should have talked of the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Executive. That responsibility has been shown again and again to be perfectly illusory, and to mean nothing whatever. In one passage of his speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that if a Judge reported in favour of the Proclamation of a district the Government would have no alternative but to proclaim it. Now, to say that the desire of the Government would be not to proclaim a district is surely an attempt to impose upon the credulity of hon. Members, The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that no means have been provided by which such a judicial inquiry could be hold by a Judge, but the Government are not so destitute of resources that they are unable to provide the means. A clause of six lines would give them every power, and would enable them to send for persons, records, and documents. The right hon. and learned Attorney General, however, let the cat out of the bag, and gave up the whole of the case when he refused to submit to the decision of the Judges. What he says, in fact, is that these Proclamations will be issued as the result of secret ear-wigging between the landlords and the officials of Dublin Castle. Let me give an instance, to show the value of one of those Proclamations, and the manner in which they are obtained. I refer to a case which occurred last summer. There wore several prisoners tried on the 25th of June last in the County of Longford, under the Whiteboy Act, and the question of the state of the district was an element in the case of the prosecution. There was an attempt to prove that the district was in a disturbed state by producing a copy of The Dublin Gazette, in which the district had been proclaimed. Chief Baron Palles presided at the trial, and, not being satisfied with the mere production of the The Gazette, he addressed Mr. Trench, the Crown Prosecutor, in these words—"Do you intend to give evidence of the state of the district? "Mr. Trench—"We have The Gazette here proclaiming the district." The Chief Baron, not satisfied with this, proceeded to question the police constable, and this conversation occurred:—

"Chief Baron—' Is this district in a disturbed state, sergeant?'—Sergeant Jennings—'Well, not much; nothing extraordinary.'—Chief Baron—'Wo do not want to hear anything about extraordinary. Was this district quiet on or about the 25th of June last?' Sergeant Jennings—It was quiet, my Lord.'"

" Chief Baron—' Is there anything in the Statute, Mr. Trench, which says that the Proclamation in The Gazette is to be taken as conclusive evidence of the disturbed state of a district?' Mr. Trench—'No, my Lord, except that it may be taken as primâ facie evidence.' Chief Baron—' But it is of no value in the face of a statement of a witness who swears that it was quiet.' "

"Mr. Trench, Q.C.—' With your permission, ray Lord, I would like to go back and produce Mr. Hill, the Resident Magistrate, and ask him about the state of Longford.' Chief Baron—' It is very irregular. The thing has become serious now, for you are producing one witness to contradict another witness of yours.' Mr. Trench—' Well, my Lord, he said, it was not much disturbed.' Chief Baron—' He made use of the expression, but I made him go back and answer the question distinctly. I have his words down, and I will leave the question to the jury.' Mr. Trench—' I know it is irregular, my Lord, but I wish to ask Mr. Hill some questions.' Chief Baron—' Very well.' "

"Mr. Benjamin Hill, R.M., was then called, and on being sworn, said—' That he could not say the district was very disturbed; but he had two police posts on derelict farms—one on Lord Annally's estate, and the other on the estate of M'Collom's minors. The Annally protection post was in existence last June, and the other was established a month ago.' Mr. Featherston—' Is not the County of Longford, and particularly the south, in a very quiet state? Was it not quiet last summer, and is it not so? 'Mr. Hill—'Yes.' Chief Baron—'Can you say, that at this time, it was in a state of disturbance? 'Mr. Hill—' There were some cases of trespass on these derelict farms, but they had no serious outrage.' "

As I understand the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, the right of judging whether a district is in such a condition in reference to criminality as to justify its proclamation is to rest solely with the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no precedent for this semiofficial inquiry into the state of a district for which we now ask. Now, I assert that there is, and the Committee will have already gathered that that is so from the newspaper report of the case which occurred in the County of Longford which has just been read by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). Under the White-boy Act it is necessary to show that when a particular offence has been committed the district was in a disturbed state. If that were proved the offence thereupon became a criminal offence. which otherwise it would not have been, That being so, we certainly have a precedent in the existing legislation for submitting to a judicial tribunal the question whether a district was in a disturbed state or not. Under the Whiteboy Acts it was necessary that the matter should go through a jury. That, however, is not necessary under this Bill; but I wish to point out that it has a direct bearing upon the proposals contained in the Bill. The Act itself is to be set in motion by the finding of a tribunal in exactly the same position as a Judge would be in if he were to hold an inquiry of this kind. When Lord Cowper's Commission sat a large amount of evidence was taken in reference to Boycotting, but the Commission had no power to accept sworn testimony, and every item of evidence given before the Commission was evidence which could not be subjected to cross-examination, and they had no power of rebutting anything the witnesses stated. Nevertheless, that Commission had the power of summoning witnesses before them. That being so, we have surely a right to submit to the Committee that if the class of unsworn evidence taken by the Cowper Commission was a sufficient justification for applying the principle of coercion to Ireland, it will be a much less strong and a much less drastic proceeding to give power to a Judge to make a judicial inquiry before a district is proclaimed. That is my reply to one of the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The other point was the familiar one, that if before you proclaim a district you send down a Judge to hold an inquiry of this kind, and make it a condition precedent, you divest the Executive of all responsibility. That would be an effective argument if we either proposed to take away the responsibility of the Executive, or if the responsibility of the Executive really amounted to anything. We really do not think that it does, and on the principle that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," whatever value there may be in an inquiry of this kind, it is quite evident that the Irish people might occasionally get a fair decision, and would obtain more substantial justice than if they are left to the irresponsibility of the Executive. My knowledge of the Executive in Ireland induces me to believe that, no matter what Government happens to be in Office, the Executive would do anything the Government called upon them to do. At any rate, that is our experience of the past. We consider that this preliminary inquiry would have a special value. We ask, before the liberty of a district is taken away, by the whispering of a landlord or his agent into the ears of the officials of Dublin Castle, that the district, at any rate, shall have the opportunity of defending itself before a public officer who shall hold a regular constituted judicial inquiry.

lam surprised that the Government have refused to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The adoption of it would save them a good deal of this responsibility which they seem to regret; it would save the Lord Lieutenant himself from being advised by the Reports of the Resident Magistrates or of the police, who, of course, have an interest in sending them. In many cases a magisstrate, such as Captain Plunkett, may be inclined to send in a Report as to the disturbed state of a district, which Report, when thoroughly inquired into by a Judge, would be found to be utterly destitute of foundation. Then, again, the Resident Magistrates themselves are liable to be deceived or mistaken by the Reports which they receive from the police and their subordinates. In many parts of Ireland it is said that there is what may be described as a state of siege, rather than the administration of the ordinary law; and the police in Ireland, as well as the Resident Magistrates, together with the ordinary officers of the law, are desirous that the law should be set aside, and that they should be armed with powers to enable them to perform their duties with as little trouble to themselves as possible. There is an old saying that nobody can rule in a state of siege; but the Irish police fancy that they can rule districts in the remote corners of Ireland when they are aided and assisted by the powers which this Act will give them. In point of fact, they are of opinion that they themselves may be enabled to place the country in a state of siege. But I think it would save the Lord Lieutenant himself from being betrayed into the commission of any serious mistake if this Amendment were adopted. we know that ''distance lends enchantment to the view," and people who are removed to a distance from Ireland conjure up all kinds of fears as to the state of things which is prevailing in that country. Not long ago I met in London a lady who was about to visit Ireland, and who said that she was going there in fear and trembling for her life. I saw her again upon her return, and she told me that she had found the Irish people the kindest, the mildest, and the quietest in the world. It was "the distance" that led this lady to conjure up fears in regard to the disturbed stated of Ireland; and so it is with the Lord Lieutenant. He sits in Dublin Castle, and he hears nothing but the reports of biassed chief magistrates, or lazy sub-constables, and officials who desire to get this power, and who are in the habit of looking at these districts through a long telescope, which produces the picture of a terrible state of affairs. Having received these dreadful reports, the Lord Lieutenant is tempted to proclaim the districts to which they relate. All this difficulty would be avoided by the appointment of a Judge to conduct an official inquiry, and take evidence as to the state of the district on the spot. Let me give the Committee an instance to show the ex- aggerated character of the reports which are made to the Lord Lieutenant. In one district—that of Castleisland—a place which has been tolerably well known lately—there was found a Resident Magistrate who had a conscience, and who, on being put upon his oath, was disposed to tell the truth. I allude to Mr. Davis, of the Castleisland District, who stated, before the Cowper Commission, that the terrible accounts which had been given of that district had no foundation at all; that the district was not disturbed; and that there were only two persons who were suffering seriously from Boycotting. This is the very district which furnished the late Mr. W. E. Forster with all his statistics in justification of the Crimes Act of 1882; and yet you have a man—the Resident Magistrate attached to the district—declaring that there are only two people in it who are seriously Boycotted. I am informed by an hon. Friend of mine, sitting near me, that this fair-minded magistrate has since been transferred; it appears that his services are not wanted in the district of Castleisland, because he happened to tell the truth. It is for these reasons I say to the Committee, and to the Government in particular, that it is to their interest to accept the Amendment. It is certainly to the interest of the Lord Lieutenant to accept it, because it is likely to save him from exaggerated reports on the part of the Resident Magistrates and police. Further, it is to the interest of the good government of the country that the responsibility should be placed on some judicial personage, who would make an inquiry on the spot as to the necessity of the proclamation of the district. For these reasons I support the Amendment; and I would strongly urge upon the Committee the desirability of accepting it, and adding it to the Bill.

I have to move an Amendment, in line 30, to leave out the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council." I believe it is a fact that the Privy Council in Ireland does not occupy the same position as the Privy Council in this country. The Members of the Privy Council are certainly much too numerous for effective consultation; and, as a matter of practice, I believe they are never consulted as a body. On the contrary, the Lord Lieutenant and the Executive content themselves with seeking advice from a small number of the Council who are Members of the Cabinet. We all know very well what a Cabinet is; but, as a matter of fact, it is a body which has no legal existence. When an lion. Gentleman is promoted to Cabinet rank, the position he occupies is not recognized by any Act of Parliament, and, so far as the law is concerned, "the Cabinet" is altogether non-existent. We have been told that the Judicial Members of the Privy Council do not concern themselves with the initiation of criminal proceedings, or with matters appertaining to criminal proceedings. It follows, therefore, that when the Lord Lieutenant seeks the advice of the Privy Council with reference to such matters, he applies to what has always been described as the residuum, of the Council, consisting of discredited politicians. In former times the English Privy Council was a consulting body; and, to some extent, that state of things still prevails in Ireland, with the necessary consequence that the Privy Council exercise a most dangerous and a most noxious influence upon political Parties in Ireland. It is that state of things we desire to put an end to, so far as the administration of this measure is concerned. We ask that the Lord Lieutenant shall not be permitted to evade his responsibility; we ask that if the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant happens to be impugned in this House or elsewhere, he shall not be permitted to say—"I acted, not upon my own initiative, but upon the advice of the Privy Council." We ask that the responsibility shall rest directly with the Lord Lieutenant and the Government of which he is a Member, and that in this case the old maxim, that "what is everybody's business is nobody's business," shall not be allowed to operate. Moreover, we ask that the advice given to the Lord Lieutenant as to the administration of the provisions of this measure shall not come from a body composed exclusively of men who for years past have been in bitter conflict with the mass of the people of Ireland. For these reasons I move the Amendment; and I cannot help expressing my regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), who has placed an Amendment on the Paper in precisely similar terms to that which I am now proposing, is not in his place this evening to move it. I think it would have been very interesting, as a matter of curiosity, to know what are the views of the particular body to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs upon this subject.

It is usual to provide, in matters of this kind, that the Lord Lieutenant shall act "by and with the advice of the Privy Council," and the Government cannot accept the Amendment, which would be a new departure. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway seem to think that the Lord Lieutenant should be solely responsible for issuing Proclamations under this measure; but, in the opinion of the Government, it is more desirable that he should follow the usual course of acting "by and with the advice of the Privy Council."

I judge from the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government cannot accept the Amendment, because they wish that the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant should be shared by someone else.

All that we say is that we are not prepared to accept the Amendment.

It has been said that the Irish Judges give advice to the Lord Lieutenant in reference to proceedings in criminal cases; but I think I am bound to accept the statement of the Lori Chief Justice of Ireland, made only recently, that the Irish Judges do not take part in matters of this kind except as a mere formality. Who, then, would be the persons left who, as Privy Councillors under this Bill, would perform the duty of advising the Lord Lieutenant? They are chiefly ex-Chief Secretaries of the Lord Lieutenant, such as Sir George Trevelyan, the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), Mr. James Lowther, who never, I believe, attended a meeting of the Privy Council, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), who, also, has never been present at the meetings of the Privy Council. Consequently, the duty of advising the Lord Lieutenant will be left to the following persons:—-In the first place, there is the Duke of Leinster. [An hon. MEMBER: He is dead.] I am reminded by my hon. Friend that the Nobleman whose name appears at the head of the list as Duke of Leinstor, and who had a seat on the Privy Council, is dead. Therefore it will be necessary to omit him from the list. I very much regret it, because I was going to point out that he was the only decent man of the lot. The next name on the list is that of the Marquess of Waterford, a Nobleman well-known as one of the foremost champions of the Orange Landlord Party in Ireland, and noted for his rack-renting antecedents and for his quarrels with his tenantry. Only very recently the noble Marquess challenged his tenants to go into the Land Court. He asked them for an increase of 50 per cent upon the whole of their rents, and the judgment of the Court was to reduce the rents by 50 per cent instead of to increase them. The next name upon the list is that of the Marquess of Drogheda, a worthy brother-in-arms of the Marquess of Waterford. He is not merely a Tory—I do not object so much to his being a Tory. [A laugh.] I observe that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison), who was returned by the casting vote of the Returning Officer of that borough, and who is one of the most demonstrative Members in this House, laughs. Well, I have said that the Marquess of Drogheda is a brother-in-arms of the Marquess of Waterford; and, so far as rack-renting is concerned, I believe the Marquess of Drogheda to be one of the worst landlords, not only in Ireland, but in the civilized world. It is pretty generally known that the Marquess of Drogheda has been constantly engaged in conflicts with his tenantry, and that he has been proved over and over again to be a rack-renter of the most ferocious description. The next name is that of the Marquess of Headfort, who is another of the same class, and then comes the Earl of Belmore, who also takes premier rank among the landlord party, and who is followed by Viscount Monck, whose career as an Irish landlord has certainly not been unexceptionable. We come next to the Right Hon. W. H. Cogan, one of the gentlemen who have been expelled from the Irish representation. He is another member of the landlord class, and he will endeavour, no doubt, to assist the Lord Lieutenant by justifying the actions of His Excellency whenever a desire is expressed to proclaim a branch of the National League in a particular district. Then follow the names of Sir William Gregory and Mr. H. Bruen, the latter of whom was expelled from the representation of the County of Carlow. Mr. Bruen stands in the very front rank of the rack-renters of that county, and he has a personal interest in seeing that the provisions of this measure are put in force in the most merciless manner. The same may be said of Mr. Arthur McMurrough Kavanagh, who was one of the principal landlord witnesses before the Cowpor Commission, and who boasted before that Commission that he had cut out of the newspapers everything that reflected discredit on the National League; that he had pasted his cuttings on pieces of paper; and that he was ready to put them in as evidence before the Commission. That gentleman would, I feel satisfied, be most effusive in the advice he would tender to the Lord Lieutenant, and would feel it a sacred duty to tell him to suppress right off every branch of the National League in existence. Then we have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is called here Colonel Edward Robert King-Harman. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] The Chief Secretary says "Hear, hear!" which means, I presume, that he is greatly assisted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the discharge of his duties in this House. I congratulate him on his taste and judgment. I have mentioned the names of some of the gentlemen who will have to advise the Lord Lieutenant in putting the provisions of this Act in force. How this family party will work is clear enough. They will dine together on some special evening, and discuss the shortcomings of the National League; and then they will advise the Lord Lieutenant that certain branches of the League are keeping the whole countryside in a state of disturbance, and that the district ought to be proclaimed. In that way the whole thing will be done, and the liberties of the people of the district will be completely taken away. A more disreputable and a more disgraceful mode of proceeding was never heard of in any civilized country. It is altogether foreign to anything like Constitutional government. We know very well that the statements we make on this subject will be characterized as exaggerated. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] But I will commend to the attention of the hon. Gentleman on the opposite side who says "Hear, hear" the recent statement by Sir George Trevelyan, which bears out, in substance, every single word the Irish Members have advanced from those Benches. Sir George Trevelyan states distinctly that he knows, from official experience, that a certain ring exists in Dublin Castle by means of which alone this sort of machinery is kept going. When we have an important witness like that upon our side I do not think it necessary to refer more particularly to the sneer of the hon. Gentleman on the other side. As I have pointed out, the Members of the Privy Council who will give advice to the Lord Lieutenant will consist of the working gang of the Council, who are the worst landlords who can be found in Ireland—landlords who have long been in conflict with their tenants, and whose rents have been cut down 40, 50, and 60 per cent by the Land Courts, and who have, therefore, personal motives for taking vengeance by a merciless use of this Act. It is a gang of this kind that is to advise the Lord Lieutenant as to the issue of these Proclamations, and it is to their will and by their fiat that you are to control the liberties of the Irish people.

I was under the impression that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was superfluous, because I understood him to say that "by and with the advice of the Privy Council" was purely formal. I remember that when I was engaged in passing through this House a small measure last year, the same kind of criticism in reference to the Privy Council was made which is being made now. and on that occasion I felt it my duty to point out that the action of the Privy Council was little more than nominal and purely formal. I understand the Chief Secretary to say now across the floor of the House that the Irish Judges do take part in the deliberations of the Privy Council, and give advice in executive action?

What I said was, that I could not accept an Amendment which stood in the name of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), because it would prevent the Lord Lieutenant from taking the advice of the judicial element of the Privy Council. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) has pointed out that the reason why we cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) is, that we proposed to deal constitutionally with the matter in this Bill. It has been stated that it was not customary for the Judicial Members of the Privy Council to concern themselves with the initiation of proceedings; but, if that was so, the object is to provide that they shall concern themselves with it in future.

It is impossible to understand that the Government can have any logical reason for objecting to this Amendment. When the last Amendment was proposed the Government alleged that they could not accept it, because it would remove responsibility from the Lord Lieutenant. That was the only answer they made to the Motion for inserting the words proposed. Now, we move the omission of words from the clause which would enable the Lord Lieutenant to take advice with reference to the proclamation of districts from whomsoever he pleased, in order that he might be responsible for proclaiming the districts; but this time we are met by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) in quite a different strain. We find ourselves quite unable to fix the Government by any argument that it is possible to bring forward, because they slink away from every argument, even their own. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), there is no doubt whatever as to what will be done in these eases of proclamation. As a matter of fact, instead of the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council," the clause ought to run "by and with the advice of the executive or police in the county." That would be the true interpretation of the intentions of the Government Besides that, it will be from the ranks of the permanent officials that appointments will be made when vacancies occur from time to time, and it will be upon the opinion of such gentlemen as these that the judgment of the Lord Lieutenant will be formed. I cannot understand why the Government should wish to retain these words, unless it be for reasons that have been given; and, without wishing to detain the Committee at greater length, I would suggest to the Government that, perhaps, the proper wording for the clause would be—"The Lord Lieutenant by and with the advice of a Council of War," and so on.

In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Southwark (Mr. A. Cohen) I rise to propose the Amendment standing in his name, which is one of considerable importance. It is, besides, an Amendment in respect of which I appeal to the Government with great confidence, in the expectation that they will agree to insert the words I propose in the clause. During the discussions on this Bill we have had frequent references to the Act of 1882; and in the case of many Amendments proposed on this side of the House, when anything has been stated contrary to that Act, we have had the Act quoted against us. We have now to propose an Amendment in accordance with the Act of 1882. The clause before the Committee follows the words of the Act of 1882, with a single exception. The Act of 1882 provided that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should only proclaim a district where it was necessary to do so "for the prevention of crime and outrage;" and I propose, therefore, to insert these words in the clause which is now before us. I think I have shown a very strong case for appealing to the Government to accept this Amend- ment. Then, as to the importance of the Amendment. In the clause as it at present stands there would be no direction whatever to the Lord Lieutenant as to the circumstances under which he might proclaim a district in Ireland. It will be left entirely to his discretion whether he is to proclaim a district or not, and the causes which may influence him will be various. There may, for instance, be an article which appears in a newspaper in one of the districts which he may not like, and which the Law Officers might tell him could not form the subject of a prosecution with any chance of success, and he might endeavour to meet the difficulty by proclaiming the district. Then, again, it might be that owing to a combination among his tenants a landlord could not got his rents, and that the members of the combination, although not refusing to pay the rent, were only able to pay a reasonable amount. In this case the landlord might go to the Lord Lieutenant and induce him to believe that such a condition of things existed in the district that it ought to be proclaimed. Now, neither of these things could have been done under the clause of the Act of 1982, when there was a much greater danger to the landlords in Ireland than there is now. As I have said, the clause of the Act of 1882 directed that a district should only be proclaimed when it was the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant that it was necessary to proclaim it for the prevention of crime and outrage. I have looked back to several Coercion Acts, and I find that in them all there are words to this effect, generally limiting the action of the Lord Lieutenant. In the Act of 1835, which was the strongest Coercion Act passed in this House, as it came down from the House of Lords, there were no such restrictive words; but the House of Commons inserted words to provide that no proclamation should be made of any district merely for the refusal to pay tithes. The insertion of the words I refer to shows how necessary the House of Commons considered it, even under stronger circumstances than exist at the present moment, that the proclamation of a district should not take place on account of any agrarian movement. Now, the words which I propose to introduce, and which were contained in the last Coer- cion Act, have been omitted from the present Bill, and I ask the Government why it is that those words are left out? We have heard often enough of the precedent of the Act of 1882, Why, then, have the Government not followed the precedent of the Proclamation Clauses is that Bill in this respect? There must be some reason for it, and I venture to ask the Government, even if they do not accept the Amendment—which appears to me to be both reasonable and proper, and for which there is the strong case I have brought before the Committee—I ask them why it is they have omitted these words? I do not wish to detain the Committee at any length in moving this Amendment; but I repeat that a strong case has, in my opinion, been made out for following the wording of the Act of 1882, which placed a limitation on the action of the Lord Lieutenant in proclaiming a district. If the Government do not accept the Amendment, they should, at least, tell the Committee why the words have been omitted.

The right hon. Gentleman asks us for our reasons for not inserting the words of his Amendment in the present clause. If we had considered that these words were fit and necessary we should have been pleased to insert them; but our own opinion is that they would not be proper in the present Bill, and that they were out of place in the Act of 1882. I point out to the Committee that this is a Bill not only for the prevention, but for the punishment of crime in Ireland; there are several sentences in the Bill also referring to the detection of crime. That being the scope of the present measure, it would not be desirable to restrict its operation in the manner proposed by the Amendment; and our reason for objecting to the words is that they would not be in accordance with the principle of the Bill.

Surely the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General is an extraordinary one. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really mean to say that the Government have left out this most important restriction and limitation because it would have been inconvenient and cumbersome to insert three words? A more ludicrous argument could not be imagined. The real explanation is that the Government have left out the words because this is not a Bill for the prevention of crime and outrage, but because it is a Bill for the suppression of political combinations in Ireland; and the attitude of the Government, with reference to this Amendment, is one of the many illustrations with which they furnish us of their real object. We have already tested them by various Amendments; and this Amendment is only a test the more. We say that if your Bill is really aimed at crime and outrage, you should put into it the restriction which was in the Bill of 1882; and if you do not introduce the words, it is one more proof, as I have said, that the Bill is aimed at political combinations, and not at crime and outrage.

The hon. and learned Attorney General has said that the Government do not want to encumber the Bill with words which might lead to its further enlargement. These words would cover conviction for crime and outrage; and it must be that, in rejecting thorn, the Government want the Bill for something besides the prevention of crime and outrage—there can be no other reason for not accepting the Amendment. If they want to put down lawful agitation, it is necessary that they should leave out these words; but if they only want to prevent crime and outrage, the word "prevention" would cover everything. I trust the Government will not resist words which, if inserted, will limit the Bill to the prevention of crime and outrage, and which, if left out, will show that the Government only desire to use the clause as a means for putting down political combination. If the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) will permit me, I would move to insert, after the word "prevention," "and punishment," so as to make the clause run, "for the prevention and punishment of crime and outrage," so as to throw upon the Government the responsibility of rejecting the words.

I do not see how we can accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman if these words are inserted. It is not possible to catalogue all the proper motives which might induce the Lord Lieutenant to put this section in force.

The only argument used against this Amendment was that it did not go far enough. We have now met that argument, and I trust we shall be allowed to amend the Amendment in the sense proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton. When that is done, I can see no possible ground on which the Government should refuse to accept it. If they do not accept the Amendment in its then form, it is clear that they must be influenced by other motives than the prevention and punishment of crime.

I ask the Government to accept the Amendment last proposed without a Division, so as to give us an opportunity of discussing the whole Amendment.

We have now the whole Amendment before us, and if the Government do not intend to add anything to the statement of the Attorney General I presume we must go on with the discussion. The attitude taken up by the Government upon this Amendment will and ought to regulate our action not only upon this, but every succeeding Amendment proposed to the Bill. I say this because an appeal was made to us by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to-day to confine our Amendments to matters of principle. In the acceptance of such a proposal there is something implied—namely, that we should be met by the Government with something like a disposition to accept an Amendment of some kind to the clause; but I am bound to say that if we are met by the Government with an obsti- nate resistance to every Amendment, good, bad, and indifferent, we shall gain nothing by our concession. We test the Government by this Amendment, and if they refuse it, then. I say that we shall be driven to the conclusion that the Government intend to stand by every word of the Bill. If that is so, I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the use of our curtailing discussion—whore will be the advantage of making this concession, if our doing so is to have the effect of leaving the Bill precisely where it was when we started? So much with regard to the attitude which we shall take up. I now come to the Amendment before the Committee, and upon this subject I may say that I have never seen a man more completely hoisted with his own petard than the hon. and learned Attorney General. He says that he does not object to the principle of the Amendment, but he objects to the Amendment because it is not sufficiently enlarged. Well, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton enlarges the Amendment, and the moment he does so the hon. and learned Attorney General changes his mind.

I pointed out that we could not catalogue all the proper motives which might induce the Lord Lieutenant to put the section in force, and I expressly stated this, not by way of justification to ourselves, but in answer to the statement of the hon. Member opposite.

I say that we are just where we were before, unless we get this Amendment agreed to. That is what the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman have made absolutely clear. There are only three things which the Executive can do with regard to crime; they can prevent it; they can detect it; and they can punish it; and I defy the metaphysical genius of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to name any condition of being or ontology—which, I believe, is the word in favour just now in Scotland—with regard to crime that is not included within the terms "prevention," "detection," and "punishment." That being so, I suggest that the Amendment should be again amended by putting in the words "and punishment," and I say that these terms finally exhaust the whole category in respect of crime and outrage, and that if the Government will not accept the Amendment in that form it is because they want to extend the Bill beyond those limits. I say that we on these Benches are perfectly ready to be judged with regard to the Amendments we have proposed to this Bill, and that the Government will also be judged by the country for their refusals to accept them.

The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) originally, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who amended it, and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who proposes to amend it still further, have all charged the Government with a sinister motive in not following the precise words of the Act of 1882. The particular charge is that the Government are aiming at political combinations instead of the detection and punishment of crime. But this is an accusation which we have always denied, and still deny. This section is only to enable the Lord Lieutenant to set in motion the other clauses of the Bill. The proper way would be to amend the clauses which define the offences, and not the clause for setting in motion the machinery directed against crime and outrage; but we believe that the Amendment, as proposed to be amended, would not have the effect of limiting in the slightest degree the operation of any other clause in the Bill.

Then why do you not accept it?

That is exactly what we mean to do.

I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Amendment. I merely wish to say that I do not follow the reasoning of the hon. and learned Attorney General in thinking that it is possible to punish crime without detecting it.

It is my duty to state that, as far as the Government are concerned, they must oppose this Amendment, as well as all others upon the Paper which have for their object the limitation of the period during which Proclamations shall continue. Whatever period was inserted, it might be that in one case it would be too long and in another too short for the necessities of the case. The provision of our Bill is that the Proclamation may be revoked at any time. In the case of former Proclamations it is within my own knowledge, and that of many hon. Members of this House, that they have been revoked at widely different periods; I have known Proclamations revoked after 14 days, after a month, after three months, and even after a period of years. I cannot, therefore, see what could be gained by adopting the Amendment proposed, or in other similar Amendments which contain nothing that would prevent the Lord Lieutenant issuing a new Proclamation immediately upon the withdrawal of the former. Under these circumstances we cannot accept the Amendment.

The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland states that his objection applies not only to this Amendment, but to every Amendment upon the Paper which proposes to limit the period during which the Proclamation is to run. I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not turned to the next page, because he would see there a reference to the expiry of Proclamations. If there is no date mentioned for the expiry, it is obvious that the period of Proclamation cannot expire at all. We know that it is impossible to fix the date of expiry absolutely; but there would be nothing to prevent the Lord Lieutenant from proclaiming a district afresh on the eve of expiry, and the object of the Amendment is to compel the Lord Lieutenant to look into the matter and discover what the true state of the district may be. That we consider to be only a reasonable provision. The fact that the Proclamation depends upon the existence of crime and outrage makes this Amendment all the more reasonable. We know that the strongest pressure will be brought to bear by rack-renting landlords and broken-down country gentlemen upon the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary for Ireland to keep these Proclamations in force in order that they may get rid of those whom they consider to be objectionable neighbours. Therefore it is that we want to make the Lord Lieutenant responsible; we want to make his responsibility real, and to give him an opportunity of exercising those great abilities which he is supposed by some, although not by us, to possess.

The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland does not seem to understand the object we have in supporting this Amendment. The complaint is, that this is a Coercion Act which is to be ever lasting. All former Coercion Acts were Acts which expired at a certain date, and the Proclamation necessarily terminated with the Acts themselves: and not only was that the case, but the rules and regulations were such as to afford a hope that the Proclamations would terminate when the causes which had brought them about had ceased. The case here is quite different, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that if the necessity for the Proclamation continues after the time named in this Amendment, there will still remain a largo amount of unused force in the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council, which can be exercised in re-proclaiming the district. The right hon. and learned Gentleman objects that the time named may be too long or too short; but we think, on the other hand, that the period stated would prove to be neither the one nor the other. Everyone who has had any experience in these matters will see that it is not a light thing to subject men for an undefined period to what is, as a matter of fact, equivalent to control by court martial. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember the observation of the learned Judge who said that a certain trial in Ireland represented to his mind the trial of a Kaffir at the Cape by a jury of Dutch Boers. These are the words of a Judge who knows the force of language; and I repeat that it is no light matter that a clause of this kind should be irrevocable. We have known the case of a district remaining under Proclamation until it was forgotten; and there have been others in which the liberties of the people have been suspended for indefinite periods, and these are among the reasons why we urge upon the Government the acceptance of the present Amendment.

This Amendment, in the first place, has been proposed to show that there shall be a period for the expiring of an ordinary as well as a special Proclamation, and how it shall take place; another object is to make it obligatory on the Lord Lieutenant and his advisers to reconsider the Proclamation periodically. I think it is not too much to ask that the Officers of the Crown should periodically consider whether or not a Proclamation should be renewed?

In connection with the Coercion Act of 1882, there was a promise given by the late Mr. Forster that each individual case should be inquired into every three months. Now, Mr. Forster was a very stern man; but there were good-natured points in his disposition, and he held, among other things, that no Coercion Act should be passed for an unlimited time, and further, as I have said, that an investigation should take place into individual cases. If after three months investigation was regarded then as necessary, how much more necessary is it now that some limit should be put to the time during which the liberties of the people of Ireland are at the mercy of the Crown Prosecutor? Mr. Forster considered it unwise that a Government should have the powers of a Coercion Act to be hung like a sword over the people, and taken down to be used according to the disposition of any official. It is clear from this that Mr. Forster had some conscience left; but the present Government have none left whatever. I trust the conduct of Mr. Forster will not be lost upon the Government on the present occasion, although, up to the present time, they have simply turned their back on every Amendment which has come from this side of the House. When they accepted the last Amendment they were on the horns of a dilemma, and there was no escape for them; but now they say that they will not accept an Amendment of this reasonable and necessary character, although it has a very strong precedent in its favour—namely, that a similar proposal was adopted by Mr. Forster. For that reason, although I do not expect it, I still hope they may be induced to accept the words of limitation which my hon. Friend proposes.

I wish to point out that the Bill refers to the expiring of the Proclamation, and I have to ask how, if there is to be no termination, any Proclamation can be said to expire?

I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland does not think it necessary to answer the arguments of my hon. Friend. If a Proclamation be not limited in duration, what is the meaning of the words in the next clause? I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation rather tells against his own position, because I understand him to say that he contemplates that these Proclamations should be limited, not in the words of the Proclamations, but in respect of the necessity for them. If that be so, I suggest that six months is not an unreasonable period to propose. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to conceive that circumstances might arise in which a Proclamation should continue for an unlimited time; but I should be sorry to think that such a state of crime and outrage was about to last for ever in Ireland as would make it necessary to continue in existence such an Act as this, although I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Party credit for doing all they can to increase crime and outrage there. But if there be in Ireland any considerable amount of crime and outrage, or if the Government succeeds in bringing about such a condition of things, I do not think that it will last for ever; and, therefore, I do not see why they should take the precaution of making the Act everlasting. The Government say that we are limiting the period of Proclamation, but that we do not, at the same time, give any protection to the locality against re-Proclamation. We are, of course, not so ignorant as to suppose that the Proclamation could not be renewed by the Lord Lieutenant; but we want to secure that a district shall not be proclaimed for a longer period than is absolutely necessary. I was going to refer to the Act of 1882, but in that matter the hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor) has anticipated me, and it will not be necessary for me now to do so. I wish, however, to point out that the limitation of the period to three months in the Act of 1882 was not that dead letter which the right hon. Gentleman seems to imply would be the result of such a limitation in the Bill. It is true that, under Mr. Forster's Bill, a prisoner was not bound to be released at the expiration of three months; but, at the same time, by this clause the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was specially directed to the case of an individual whoso release was, as a matter of fact, very often secured. That release was, I am sure, largely due to the fact that the Lord Lieutenant was compelled by the words of the Statute to give personal attention to the circumstances, and so reconsider the imprisonment of individuals. What we ask is that the same period for review should be given in the case of localities as in the former case was given to individuals; and if that is not conceded, it is clear to us that the Government want to make this Act still more merciless than the former.

The position taken up by the Government is that, having proclaimed a district because there exists a certain amount of crime and outrage, they mean to continue that state of things after every vestige of crime and outrage has disappeared. We charge them with doing that purely for political purposes.

I cannot see that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is consistent with the provisions of the Bill. He says that he would not have it understood that these Proclamations are to be for an indefinite period. But if that is so, why is it not stated in the Bill? Why not say that the Proclamations shall remain in force for such time as the Government shall think fit. I can see no objection to that unless they want to take greater powers than they wish the public to know of. There is a matter in connection with this subject which I think has not been touched upon, and which requires attention. Proclamations in Ireland are always attended with consequences other than the mere prosecution of offenders; they are followed by the billeting of an enormous force of police which have to be supported by the localities. This clause, therefore, gives the Government power of taxing for an unlimited period a proclaimed district. I cannot see any reason why the Proclamation should not be limited in respect of duration, just as it is limited in respect of area; and, therefore, in view of these indefinite powers I think the Amendment a very reasonable one, and shall give it my support.

I ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland whether he will not agree to there being supervision every three months, leaving the Proclamation in force unless it be withdrawn? That would simply have the effect of calling attention to the actual state of affairs.

I must point out to the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government do consider that the provisions of the Act of 1881 would not be applicable to the present case. I have already explained to the Committee that the Government cannot accept any Amendment having for its object to limit the term of Proclamation.

The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland seems to forget that this is a permanent Act. Surely, having regard to that fact, and that so much has been made of the argument by Gentlemen opposite, we are entitled to ask that this point, with reference to the revision of Proclamations, shall be conceded. It is a very difficult thing to get a Proclamation withdrawn in Ireland. There are always 100 persons ready and eager that a district should be proclaimed; but there are very few who are ready to come forward and urge that the Proclamation should be withdrawn. That being so, we want some limit to be placed on the act of Proclamation; we propose that there should be a limit of time, and that when the period is drawing to a close it should be the duty of the Lord Lieu- tenant to review the facts and circumstances relating to the district, and decide judicially whether or not the Proclamation shall remain in force. If there is anything in the contention of the Government that the limitation is of no use because we make no provision against renewal, I say that we cast on the officials in Ireland the responsibility and duty of periodically renewing the circumstances, and considering whether they warrant the continuance in force of the Proclamation. We know from the fact that no persons will take the trouble to examine the circumstances that a Proclamation may continue in force for an unlimited period, and unless our Amendment is accepted there will be nothing in the Bill to compel the officials in Ireland to examine into the necessity of continuing or withdrawing the Proclamation. That being the case, we know perfectly well that a Proclamation, being once issued, will remain upon a district, so far as the present Government are concerned, without anything being done for its removal.

I think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty) is well worthy of the attention of the Government. It takes from their hands no power whatsoever, and it simply provides that there shall be a periodical review of the circumstances of these Proclamations. I think it most desirable that this proposal should be accepted for the purpose of casting upon the officials in Ireland the duty of reconsidering the various Proclamations and, in case they see reason for it, withdrawing them. But from another point of view I think the suggestion an admirable one, inasmuch as it would have a good effect upon the proclaimed districts. I believe that if it were known that the state of a district would be brought under consideration at the Castle, it would be an inducement to the people of the district to present a better record. On the other hand, if no such provision is made, there would be no inducement to bring about an improved state of affairs. I cannot see that the position of the Government will be in any respect weakened by the introduction of the words proposed by my hon. Friend, nor can I see anything in favour of their opposition but the mulish obstinacy they have shown in refusing all Amendments from this side of the House.

I agree with my hon. Friend that unless you accept this Amendment it will be a matter of indifference to the people of the district whether crime exists there or not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has, in answer to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), tried to insinuate that the punishments under this Act would not be so great as under the Act of 1882; but we say that in that respect the two Acts cannot be compared for a moment, and that this Act curtails the liberties of the people more than any former Act. From the position taken up by the Government we can only conclude that they intend these Proclamations to be permanent.

I have an Amendment in line 34, to leave out from "Ireland" to "Proclamation" in line 35, and to insert "from a day not earlier than seven days from the date of such Proclamation." My object is to give reasonable notice of the proclamation of the districts for the purposes of the provisions of this Bill to persons who may be interested.

The clause as it stands is objectionable from two points of view, because it leaves you in doubt when the Proclamation will come into force, because it says "within any specified part of Ireland as from the date of the Proclamation." Well, we know that there is no division of a day in law; and, supposing the Proclamation is issued on the "13th June," that may mean any time of the day or night of the 13th June. The Proclamation may be issued at 10 minutes to 12 o'clock at night, and a person who may have done some act quite innocently, such as attending a meeting at 5 o'clock in the morning, 17 or 18 hours previously, may be proceeded against, prosecuted, and found guilty under the procedure sections of this Act, owing to the framing of this clause. This section is in reality, owing to the way in which it is worded, retrospective to the extent of 24 hours. That is a serious objection to the clause as it stands, as it is quite open to that interpretation. There is another interpretation that may be put upon it, and one quite as objectionable, and that is that the Proclamation will issue after the application of the Act. It does not exactly say it here—but it does not say the contrary in such a definite way as to preclude a person wishing to put that construction upon it from doing so. I suppose the construction is that the Act, if passed on the 14th, would come into operation on the 15th and that the Proclamation may be issued on the 15th; but we know from previous experience how unfair it is to allow a Proclamation to issue at a period when it is too late to take precautions against it, or to avoid violating the particular provisions promulgated by that Proclamation. That is a thing we have constantly experienced in Ireland; it has happened hundreds of times. Say a meeting is called at a certain place on a given day. Placards announcing that meeting may have been out on the hoardings and on the roadsides for a week or a fortnight—I know a case whore they have been out for a fortnight. People may come to that meeting from 20 miles round, but at half-past 11 o'clock at night on the day preceding that fixed for holding the meeting a notice may have been posted up proclaiming the meeting. That was done in the case I refer to, and the notice was handed to the chairman of the meeting in my presence. Not only has that occurred in my own experience, but we know that it has been done over and over again in Ireland. Proclamations are issued up to within a very short time of the hour at which the meetings are to be held, and people who come miles and miles to attend these meetings are liable to criminal prosecution under these Proclamations, although they were entirely ignorant that what they were about to do was illegal. I cannot think that the Government intended to render this sort of thing possible under this Bill. It has been so often complained of in Ireland, not only with regard to the present Government, but also with regard too the Governments, that I should have thought they would have taken measures to prevent its recurrence in connection with this Act. I am bound to hold that the Government are quite aware that this sort of thing is done. They must know the mischief they have brought about from time to time, and the danger to which it exposes the community, to riot and disorder. They must know that the Proclamations themselves have been the cause of serious disturbances—they must know that on many occasions it has been nothing less than sheer good luck which has prevented the breaking out of serious riot and disorder as the result of these Proclamations themselves. In many cases, so far from the Proclamations being a means of preserving law and order, and preserving the peace, they have been the very reverse. The Amendment I propose would prevent any of these dangers occurring. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in asking that some little notice should be given to the persons interested. At all events, let there be a word before a blow is struck. A week's notice is little enough. It might be said that dangers might arise within these seven days that I ask for. It may be said that a conspiracy may be growing up in a neighbourhood, or that some evictions like those at Bodyke may be coming on, and that the Executive must not be limited in point of time. It may be said—"In many eases it will be necessary to act immediately, and the mischief may be done before the seven days you ask for has expired." Well, there is nothing in that case. In the cases of evictions which bring about disturbances, such as those at Bodyke, our experience tells us that it is not likely that breaches of the peace are brought about in a day. Notice of evictions is given months before. It takes 14 or 15 days, even when an eviction motion is not defended, before a decree can be issued or a judgment obtained; and the Government will, therefore, have not one week, but several weeks' notice of the fact that there is going to be a battue of peasants at an eviction such as occurred at Bodyke or Glenbeigh. The Government will have plenty of time to issue their notice of Proclamation, in order to give fair intimation to the people. And the same thing applies to other matters which are made the subject of Proclamation. It may be said that there may be some secret combinations going on, and that it is necessary for the Government to have power to act immediately they find it out; but surely the Government find out these combinations rapidly enough. It is hard to draw a distinction between the office in Printing House Square and Her Majesty's Treasury, and it is hard to see that they are not identified with each other, and that the knowledge and suspicion of the one is not the knowledge and suspicion of the other. We know that there is not the slightest conspiracy of any kind in Ireland that The Times newspaper is not acquainted with. Surely The Times newspaper having this knowledge will not be so unpatriotic as not to communicate what they know to the Treasury. We know perfectly well that The Times newspaper does not keep secret anything from the Treasury, and that the Treasury does not keep anything secret from The Times. If there is anything in the reports which reach them about combinations, they know more about the matter than anyone else—they having moans of knowing more about these things than anyone else that I know. Therefore, it would be arguing the utmost incapacity on the part of the Government if you were to say that the Government could not know anything about a conspiracy until it was on the eve of breaking out. I utterly repudiate the notion that they would not know, from their own means of information, what the combinations which exist in Ireland are, or when they are going to take place. I say give the people some notice of what is going to be done before they are brought under the provisions of this Act by the sudden springing of this Proclamation upon them. Give a word before a blow. Do not act like the treacherous Red Indian who springs upon his enemy from behind a hedge. Do not enact a retrospective law of this kind. I move the Amendment which stands in my name, and though I have not much hope of its being accepted, I put it down with some confidence that the arguments I have submitted in support of it will not be very easily disposed of.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the effect of his own Amendment—at any rate, if he has, he has very wisely refrained from acknowledging it to the Committee. His argument might have been a very good one as applied to the Crimes Bill of 1882; but there is no provision in the present measure as to proclaiming meetings with a certain penalty to persons who attend them. His principal argument appears to me to amount to this—that a Proclamation can be issued declaring a particular meeting, which had been called, illegal immediately before the hour fixed for that meeting to take place, supposing that the result of that would be that those persons attending the meeting could be subjected to punishment. He says it would be unfair that a Proclamation should be sprung upon such people when they had already started from their homes for the purpose of attending the meeting; and he suggests that the result, in all likelihood, would be a collision between such people and the police authorities. Well, I say that would have been a good proposal, or, at any rate, would have had some merit in it if made in connection with the Bill of 1882; but we have no provision in this Bill with regard to meetings taking place after proclamation rendering the parties attending such meetings subject to penalties. Let us see what the effect of the Amendment would be. The 1st clause of the Bill enables secret investigations to take place, the 2nd clause deals with the decision of cases summarily, and the 4th has reference to the change of the place of trial. Well, supposing evidence was required at a secret investigation, or suppose the attendance of witnesses was required in order that the Summary Jurisdiction Clause might be put into force, or suppose that the place of trial is changed and witnesses are required to come forward, and there is strong reason to believe that the required evidence cannot be obtained voluntarily by reason of the witnesses being intimidated, if this Amendment were accepted, and those seven days' interval were allowed, we may very naturally conclude that those witnesses who are withholding evidence by reason of sympathy with the crime, or by reason of intimidation, will take the earliest opportunity of putting themselves beyond the reach of the magistrates. So that these seven days would in reality be a kind of close time during which these people could escape the necessity of giving evidence. The Amendment would in this way destroy the value of the first provision of the Bill. Take the second provision, and suppose certain turbulence existed in a district, and that for the purpose of putting it down in an effective way it is necessary to resort to the application of summary jurisdiction, it is clear that these seven days' notice which would be required under the Amendment would be, in the highest degree, antagonistic to the operation of that clause. In the same way, as regards the 3rd clause which refers to the order for a special jury, and the 4th clause, which deals with the change of venue, where you have a person returned for trial, and where it is necessary in order to have a fair trial that you should have this clause put into operation, it will be seen that if this Amendment were adopted; might cause a delay which would prevent the trial taking place at the Assizes then being held in the town to which the venue had been changed. The delay might render it absolutely necessary to try the prisoner without change of venue and without appeal to a special jury. It is for the purpose of avoiding these inconveniences and difficulties that the Government are compelled to oppose this Amendment.

I deny that it follows that, in order to make the present clause effective, we must negative the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Roscommon (Dr. Commins). I do say that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, in giving the answer he has done, has limited himself to arguing the matter in an altogether technical manner. He will not deny that my hon. Friend put a case for his Amendment in the matter of the proclamation of meetings, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself saw the force of the argument founded upon that illustration, because he took it upon himself to deny that the Bill would have any relation to such a case. But he will not assert that there is not a clause in the second part of this Bill dealing with unlawful assemblies, nor will he attempt to deny that that may in certain cases be made use of for the purpose of prosecuting parties connected with meetings, and of course, indirectly, for the purpose of suppressing meetings. If that be so, it is disingenuous to say that the case which my hon. Friend has put—namely, the case of a meeting proclaimed suddenly and without notice—would be a case which could not occur under this Bill. To me it is perfectly plain that the contingency mentioned by my hon. Friend is quite possible. It is plain that the Government, under this Bill, may prosecute parties who have taken part in what they are pleased to call unlawful assemblies, and with that power in their hands—namely, the power of preventing the holding of meetings, and of dispersing meetings which they allege to be illegal—having that power in their hands, they will, as a result of it, disperse meetings which otherwise they would not be led to interfere with. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this Bill does not extend that far. He may be right in regard to form, perhaps; but in substance it does, because meetings which the Government would otherwise have no chance of deciding to be illegal, they will be able under the provisions of this Bill to get juries and magistrates to pronounce upon as illegal. Therefore, though no new offence in this matter of public meetings is set up by this clause, yet, in truth and in fact, the class of meetings which it will be in the power of the Government to disperse will be largely increased in consequence of the setting up of the new tribunal by the Bill. If that be so—and I think that no one can deny it—I do say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has completely avoided the real point raised by this Amendment. It is idle to say that this Bill does not give power to the Government to suppress meetings. We do not say that it does in all cases directly—though in the subsequent clause in certain cases that is expressly provided for, although that point is not material. We say that consequent on Section 2 of this Bill the effect of this clause without the Amendment would be to largely increase the danger of having meetings arbitrarily put a stop to by the Executive. The only really effective reply the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to give was where he pointed out certain imaginary effects of the Amendment—certain effects that he imagined would ensue in connection with Section 1. He says that in connection with Section 1, if you accept the Amendment and provide that the Proclamation is not to come into force until a week after it is issued, that the people whom it may be necessary to call up as witnesses before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction will take advantage of the interval to make themselves scarce, and in that way to defeat the object of the Bill. Does he think that there are witnesses in any district who apprehend that the Government are going to call upon them to give evidence, who, if they do not desire to be examined, will wait the passing of this Bill to be placed in the witness box? Does he think these witnesses will not leave upon the notice they have already got without waiting the passage of this Bill? If these witnesses are on the look out for the action of the Government, are apprehensive that the Government will make use of any extraordinary power which may be given to them under this Bill to take them up and examine them, why, of course, they will leave the country before ever the Bill becomes law, and the close time which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to as a result of allowing this seven days' interval will be, for their purposes, absolutely unnecessary. The close time in their case would be the interval between the present moment and the day the Bill receives the Royal Assent. That an additional mischief would be done by giving the people an additional seven days I take leave to deny. I say the suggestion is absurd. It is absurd to suppose that men who are keen enough and sharp enough to catch at a seven days' interval will not be keen enough to catch at the interval between this and the passing of the Bill. That being so, the only effective argument by which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has endeavoured to resist this Amendment falls to the ground.

I am sorry that the Amendment we have just disposed of was not accepted by the Government; but since the Government will not accept the principle one way I will see if they will accept it in another. I would move to omit the words "or any later date specified in the Proclamation." Since the Proclamation can only now be issued where outrage and crime is apprehended, it is unreasonable to suppose that a later date would be specified in the Proclamation for putting an end to it.

I think that is a very reasonable proposition.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, after "mentioned," to insert—

"Any such Proclamation shall he deemed to have expired if an Address is presented to Her Majesty, by either House of Parliament, praying that such Proclamation shall not continue in force."

"Any such special Proclamation shall he deemed to have expired if within a period of fourteen days after the same has been laid he-fore Parliament an Address is presented to Her Majesty, by either House of Parliament, praying that such special Proclamation shall not continue in force."

I need hardly say that in framing this clause in the terms in which it has been framed there was no wish to withdraw from Parliament the power it has undoubtedly always exercised with regard to matters of this kind. The Government must be in accord with the feeling of Parliament in regard to these things, otherwise it will not be allowed to retain its position. However, the right hon. Gentleman has advanced cogent reasons for the acceptance of the Amendment of which he has given Notice. Though we do not think that it does materially alter, in the direction the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, the clause as approved by us, yet as it is conceived by him, and as it may be conceived by others, that the Amendment will give a greater safeguard, we are prepared to concede the point and accept the Amendment.