I again ask the Question of the Treasury Bench which I have repeatedly asked before but have received no answer—Is there, in Ireland, a Cabinet separate and distinct from the British or English Cabinet? I asked this Question categorically the day before yesterday. I got no answer, nor do I expect any; but, as I believe the people of England are profoundly ignorant of what the Irish Privy Council really is, I now support this Amendment to leave out the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council." This course will give me the opportunity of stating to the British public what the Irish Privy Council is and what it is not. Frequently, during the course of this Bill in Committee, I have been reminded very strongly of the words of Mr. Fox, spoken in this House, nearly a century ago, when he said that, so far as he could judge, it was the aim of the British Government to make the Irish Constitution a kind of mirror in which all the vices and defects of the British Constitution were strongly reflcted. Now, let us see how that applies in reference to the Irish Privy Council, which, in some degree, is analogous to the British or English Privy Council. We know the English Privy Council, in its larger capacity, consists of a great number of Gentlemen of different thought collected together, and that they discharge statutory jurisdiction, while the Judicial Committee of that Council, which is, I believe, a descendant of the Star-Chamber, is a Court of Appeal in reference to Colonial affairs; but the Irish Privy Council we find to be an entirely different and distinct body. The distinction is seen by contrasting the two systems prevailing in England and in Ireland. To entirely different offices, the same name is given. On a former occasion, I said no two offices could be more distinct than the post of Attorney General for England and the post of Attorney General for Ireland, and no two Bodies can be more distinct, I now say, than the two Privy Councils of England and Ireland. I have studied in some respects this matter, and I have done my very best, before I had the honour of a seat in this House, to discover what the Privy Council in Ireland was, and I have found it very difficult, by patching together particles of information, piecemeal here and there, to show what its functions are. The only thing the public know about it is, I believe, that its meetings are announced in The Dublin Gazette. I have never seen The Dublin Gazette, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea Town (Mr. Dillwyn) says that he has been 32 years in this House, but has never seen it. I believe the fact of a meeting of the Privy Council is announced in The Dublin Gazette and copied into other papers; but, practically, we know nothing of its proceedings. This is a matter in which the Irish Government, for reasons best known to themselves, keep the public scrupulously in the dark. It is a pernicious system of mystification and secrecy, a kind of divinity that doth hedge round the officials of Dublin Castle and communicates itself to the Councillors. The Lord Lieutenant first of all, must be satisfied, according to this section, that the association to be proclaimed is a dangerous association; here we have a distinct divergence from the provisions of Section 5, as in Section 5 he need not be satisfied at all. In this 6th Section there is an initiatory stage; he must be satisfied by some process, of which no one knows anything, of the necessity of the Proclamation, and having attained that state of satisfaction he is to go to the wise body called the Privy Council. There are two things a man can always do, he can find out what he ought to do, and having found that out, he can find out a reasonable excuse for doing what he likes. When the Lord Lieutenant has found out what he wants, the Privy Council will give him every possible reason for doing what he likes. It is the old Homeric story over again, but in this case the advice given will depend upon the wire-pullers of Dublin Castle. My difficulty is, that if I give the simple facts, Englishmen will consider my statement to be overdrawn, as everything is so different in the two countries. The whole system of government in England and in Ireland is so distinct and different that Englishmen cannot realize the enormous chasm that separates the English Government from the Irish Government. I now come to the Privy Council by whose advice the Lord Lieutenant is to act. I find that it consists of no less than 54 wise men who represent all shades of politics and opinion. It is as much a patchwork Body as the 14 wise men who line the Treasury Bench. We find Unionists, Catholics, and all sections of polities and religious opinions represented in the Irish Privy Council. One peculiarity of this Body shows the method of English Government in Ireland. As I would wish to be right about this, I would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland to inform me if I am wrong. The Privy Council in Ireland first consists of the Lord Lieutenant, who, when he vacates his Office, ceases to be a Privy Councillor; but when the Chief Secretary vacates his Office, he remains a Privy Councillor. Then there are certain ceremonial personages members of the Privy Council—I do not use the phrase in any offensive way—I wish to know whether a summons is sent to those ceremonial personages to attend its meetings? The Prince of Wales is a Privy Councillor; but I do not know whether they ask him to attend. Then there is the great Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, who has interfered in regard to the "Plan of Campaign." Now I come to the constitution of this Body. I find out there are no less than 11 ex-Chief Secretaries—I do not include the present right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, nor do I include the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who fetches and carries for the present Chief Secretary (Colonel King-Harman). Some of these Gentlemen who are ex-Chief Secretaries have not been in Ireland for many years, as far as I can see, and have never taken any part in Irish politics for upwards of 30,40, and50 years. One of these Gentlemen I did not know until I went to the Directory; I could not under- stand why Lord Cottesloe was a Member of the Privy Council until I looked and found he was formerly Sir Thomas Freemantle who, for a few months in 1846, held the Office of Chief Secretary, and was a Member of the Privy Council for ever afterwards.[ A Laugh. ] The Lord Advocate may well laugh. This Gentleman—who has been out of the country for 45 years—is to give advice to the Lord Lieutenant. Then I come to another individual, a Lord Winmarleigh, whom I find was a certain Colonel Wilson-Patten. I remember the circumstances under which he was appointed Chief Secretary. The late Lord Mayo was appointed Governor General of India just upon the downfall of the Disraelian Administratration, he having been Chief Secretary at the time. There was a question whether he should not be recalled from India, and the person appointed as his Successor to the Chief Secretaryship was, to the best of my recollection, this Colonel Wilson-Patten, having held Office for a few days, he is another component part of this great Privy Council. Among the Chief Secretaries we have the whole range of politics, and all of these, according to this Act, must, in concert together, advise the Lord Lieutenant. What a happy family this Privy Council will be! We have, also, Lord Carlingford, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, the present Sir Robert Peel, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary, who seems in a fair way to emulate the most unpopular holder of the Office, the right hon. James Lowther. The advice of all these Gentlemen must be solicited. Then there is Sir George Otto Trevelyan. How well Sir George Trevelyan will work with the present Attorney General and the Parliamentary Under Secretary. I hope we shall not have anything approaching a political Donnybrook fair. This is the system that prevails in regard to the Irish Privy Council. It does not deceive us, and will not deceive the Liberal Party if we can help it. I must now consider those whom I look upon as the ornamental Chief Secretaries. Of these the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dartford Division of Kent (Sir William Hart-Dyke) will be called upon to give advice; but I do not think there will be much in it. He was Chief Secretary during what I may call the Car- narvon Home Rule incident; but as he knew nothing of that, and had very little hand in Irish public affairs, we can pass him by. But now I come to a Gentleman whose name will be celebrated hereafter as the Irish Chief Secretary who was able to solve the Irish problem in six hours. This great statesman is the First Lord of the Treasury, of whom I always speak with bated breath. Other statesmen have gone down to posterity canonized for great qualities, but he will go down to posterity like another Atlas with the cares of Office as Chief Secretary, for six hours, on his shoulders, and holding the sand glass in his hand representing clôture. I hope they will take his advice among these 54 Privy Councillors. Having disposed of the variegated lay Body of perfections, this kaleidoscope representing all the colours of the political rainbow, and some too strong even for the officials of Dublin Castle, I now come to the judicial Members.

I have no power to control the discretion of the hon. Member if be persists in going through the Members of the Irish Privy Council, name by name; but I think it would be more respectful to the Committee and more consistent with the conduct of Business, if he would approach the real Question, instead of indulging in vain repetitions.

I was only going to show the inconsistency of having the advice of such a Body. I am only too delighted to be controlled by you, Sir, as I have received nothing but fairness and consideration at your bands; but I wish to show that the advice of a body of gentlemen should not be sought who differ among themselves in politics, feelings, thoughts, and wishes. And now I come to the judicial element. Here there are 19 Gentlemen who are either Judges or have been Judges in Ireland. In England a Judge, with the exception of the Lord Chief Justice, is never a Privy Councillor at all, except when on retirement from the Bench he is sworn of the Privy Council as a compliment. Here the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is always a Privy Councillor, and Judges who are not appointed from the Attorney Generalship have been made Privy Councillors; and these help to constitute the 54 Gentlemen who form the Privy Council. According to this Bill, if it means anything at all, the Lord Lieutenant, having satisfied himself in some mysterious way, is to act on the advice of these 54 Gentlemen. But how are they to give advice? I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland if any summons is ever given to the ex-Chief Secretaries, to the ornamental Noblemen, to the Gentlemen who have been away from Ireland for the last 40 years, who compose the Privy Council? The mistake that occurs is this—in England, when we hear of the Privy Council, we, of course, understand it to mean the English Cabinet, or the Committee of Council; but, in Ireland, we do not know what it is; we have only the names of the members, and do not know what their functions are. I would ask another question which weighs upon the minds of the people of Ireland as to the Privy Council. The present Lord Chief Justice of Ireland thought it right to state that the Irish Judges who were Members of the Privy Council never advised criminal proceedings; but I wish to ask if the Irish Judges, who will afterwards have to administer the law, will be asked to advise the Executive Government in reference to this 6th section or not?

No, Sir; they will not be asked at all.

That is very satisfactory.

The same answer was given a night or two ago.

I am delighted to think that in this Act, at all events, the Judges will not twice be subjected to the humiliation of acting in an administrative capacity at the beck of the Government. Why should you not, instead of this Body of 54 Gentlemen, who never attend, and know nothing about the matters referred to them, have the responsibility placed upon the proper shoulders; why not have the advice of a Committee who should be selected from the Cabinet to sit upon Irish affairs? That would completely meet the difficulties of the case. But is this necessary at all? What is the benefit of having the advice of an indefinite body of persons who are ignorant of Irish affairs, and are not responsible? It is of no benefit whatever; it is simply to give a white-washedair of seedy respectability to this Bill. I do not think that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, or any hon. Gentleman, will deny what I say, that the insertion of the Privy Council is a mere affectation. It does not mean the 54 Gentlemen who compose that Body, and I do not know what it means. In the whole of this Bill there is a meladroitness of draftsmanship which is very remarkable. The draftsman, not knowing the circumstances of Ireland, seems to have framed this Bill on certain English precedents. We all know what the Privy Council means in England; but we do not know what it means in Ireland. On these grounds, I consider this Amendment should be accepted. I never saw such a contrast in these matters as in this Bill and the Criminal Code Procedure Bill. That gave definitions framed with thorough accuracy and care; this Bill is slipshod from beginning to end. In the Criminal Code Bill every word and line were considered; here the clauses are shovelled together. Upon all these grounds, I think the Amendment should be accepted, and that the people of England and Ireland should know who is to advise the Lord Lieutenant. I would ask the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General for Ireland to give me a simple statement who these men are? The Attorney General says 19 of these Gentlemen are not included. Of the residuum, four or five are ex-Ministers, others are mere ornamental personages, and two-thirds of them know nothing of the country or of Irish affairs.

Amendment proposed,

In page 5, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council."—( Mr. Chance. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

I must complain of the Liberal Unionists putting down Amendments which they never intend to propose. This is the second time the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) has put down an Amendment, and, for the second time, he has run away when the time came to move it. The sooner we have done with performances of that kind the better. The Lord Lieutenant, under this section, is to say whether any particular association is dangerous or not; and, therefore, if he is competent to tell whether a particular association is dangerous or not, why should it require the aid of the Privy Council to issue a Proclamation declaring his own opinion? The thing is preposterous and absurd, and I do not wonder that even a Liberal Unionist saw the absurdity of the thing, though I would like to ask the Attorney General if he can state why it is necessary the Lord Lieutenant should have the aid and advice of the Privy Council in issuing a special Proclamation, when he has by his own unaided authority the power to declare an association to be dangerous?

This Amendment was put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) by way of a stalking-horse, to prevent argument upon the question by putting down Amendments that it is not intended to propose at all. Yesterday we were told the one good quality in this clause in the Bill was that it provided for a supervision of the acts of the Lord Lieutenant by some mysterious process of this House, and that the Proclamation should be laid before the House, and a kind of Parliamentary supervision should attach to it; but this provision, which is stuck in at the beginning of the section, completely nullifies that responsibility. Anyone knowing anything of the law in Ireland knows that no such thing as Parliamentary or other responsibility exists or attaches to the Executive in Ireland; that they are as irresponsible as the head of an Indian tribe; that they do what they like, and are responsible to no one. I should like to know if there is any way of finding out who were the parties who were supposed to have concurred in advising, or to have assented to the views of the Lord Lieutenant, when he has made up his mind to issue a special Proclamation, establishing despotism all over Ireland in the matter of some associations? There is no way of finding it out; they are all pledged to secrecy, and there is no record kept. We had a very humorous description of the Irish Privy Council given by an hon. Member some time ago, who described it as a mystical body with a head, but no members, without any record of its proceedings, no method of summoning the Council together, and with a Lord Chancellor walking in as a gentleman might walk into his kitchen, to see if the servants were doing their work. There is no record kept of their proceedings, and if we are to be subjected to a despotism let us know it. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; we know it too well, but let the world know it; do not be ashamed of establishing a Roman despotism in Ireland, but let the world know it. Let the Lord Lieutenant have the courage, or let his subordinates have the courage of answering for him, and do not let them throw the responsibility upon this shadowy and irresponsible body, the Privy Council. No doubt, the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland will say he has heard all this before. So he has, and he will probably hear it again. The question is not answered by his telling us that, any more than if he had sat silent. He may say that he has answered our questions before; but the wonderful thing is that, though he goes through the formula, we find no trace of an answer. I am afraid he will have to listen to us again and again, unless more attention is paid to our arguments.

Upon this question of the Privy Council we have had a reply from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to our remarks, to the effect that the scandals of past years will not be continued in the future. We have maintained that these Privy Councillors meet, go into the merits of a case as displayed from one side of the question, and decide upon that, and having thus formed their opinion they, when a prosecution is instituted, proceed to adjudicate thereon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that such is not to be the case.

It never has been the case.

But the vast majority of the Irish people have formed quite a different opinion, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman must acknowledge there is foundation for inferences leading to the formation of that opinion. Now we are obliged to ask for some guarantee that such a scandalous state of things shall not continue in the future. We have heard very much during the course of these debates about the maintenance of law and order; but I say if you want respect for law and order you must make law and order worthy of respect, and the law of the Privy Council is not worthy of respect—it is instituted upon a disgraceful state of things. We accept the words of the Attorney General for Ireland; but still we consider that it is our duty to press for a guarantee that what he says shall certainly be the case—that if in future we are to be deprived of our Constitutional liberties, that Judges shall not, in the first place, meet in Council and originate the law, and then come down to the Courts of Justice and inflict grave penalties on those whose cases they have prejudged.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) has demonstrated the fact that the Privy Council is divided into two portions—the useful and the ornamental; and that, in the first place, the vast bulk of that body consists of what I may call accidental Members—Members who, for some temporary reason, have been added to the Council, but who have never taken any effective part in the deliberations of that Body. For instance, Members have been added to the Privy Council because, like the present First Lord of the Treasury, they happened to fill the Office of Chief Secretary for a day or two, and as a necessary complement to their position they were straightway made Privy Councillors. This is what we may call the ornamental portion of the Council, and if the whole of the Privy Council were constituted in that way, I, for my part, would be prepared to say that the Privy Council was an unobjectionable Body, harmless and useless as any Body in England, except so far as their judicial functions were exercised upon judicial matters. But, unfortunately, in addition to the ornamental Members of the Council, there is a residuum of actual working Members, and our complaint is of these Gentlemen who really constitute the Privy Council in Ireland, these are the effective Privy Council, and we have seen from the speeches we have heard from what class of the community, from what class of Irish society, this section of the Privy Council is drawn. I do not pretend to go through the long catalogue of the Irish Privy Council, or to mention the acting, working portion of it. They have been frequently alluded to in the House, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by further adverting to them. But we may sum up in a word by saying that the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland is one of those Members, and may be taken as a typical Member. That being so, even hon. Members sitting opposite can judge of the composition of that Body by this typical instance. Ex uno disce omnes. If it could be said that the Irish Privy Council is in its composition or working anything analogous to the English Privy Council, I, for one, would take no objection to it in this or any other department of Irish political life. But what we complain of is, that the Irish Privy Council of the present day is what the English Privy Council was a century ago; in fact, a sort of informal Cabinet, a Cabinet advising the Lord Lieutenant, and on whose advice the Lord Lieutenant acts at all serious political junctures. I would ask English Members to consider this—what would they think if in this country when Her Majesty takes upon herself to form a Cabinet of Advisers, she drew those Advisers from the ranks of the beaten political Party in this country? What would they say, if after the last General Election, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was beaten at the polls, Her Majesty in forming a Cabinet persisted, in the face of the expression of the opinion of the whole English people, in keeping that right hon. Gentleman in Office, and drawing his Colleagues solely from Members of the Home Rule Party? But that is exactly the position of the Irish Privy Council. It is an Irish Cabinet, and it is not only largely, but exclusively drawn from the political section which has over and over again been defeated at the polls, and almost completely driven out of Irish political life, except in the North-Eastern corner of the Island, and which, in no sense of the word, can be admitted to be representative of the views of the Irish people on any political, social, or religious question. Now, it is a wonderful thing that hon. Members, who go about the country telling the English people that their one consuming desire is, that there should be equal laws governing the two countries, drop out all mention of a sys- tem not only not similar to the English system, but the very antithesis and opposite of that system. In England, respect is paid to popular opinion when pronounced; but if in Ireland we by our action at the polls declare our opinion that certain Gentlemen do not represent our views on political questions, that declaration of our people, that in itself is taken as conclusive reason why those Gentlemen should be translated into Privy Councillors, and constituted Advisers of the Lord Lieutenant. Now, that is an intolerable state of things, and I do say that hon. Gentlemen who profess it to be their desire—I suppose sincerely—that the Union between the two countries should be preserved in its present form, are taking a very queer way of bringing that result about, of obtaining their end when by speech, vote and action, they prop up a system in Ireland based on principles contrary in every respect to the principles that obtain in this country.

I believe there was once a Roman Emperor who made his horse a Consul. I do not know whether he consulted the animal; but he laid down a precedent that seems to have been followed and improved upon in the constitution of the Irish Privy Council. Half of this body consists of dignified Tory asses—

Order, order! If the hon. Member persues that vein I shall have to take Notice of it.

I do not know, Sir, whether I am out of Order in referring to the composition of this Body; but I understand the Amendment raises the question whether the Lord Lieutenant should act by and with the advice of the Privy Council. Am I entitled to discuss the composition of that Council?

I have already intimated during the speech of the hon. Member for South Donegal—I do not know whether the hon. Member was present?

No, Sir; I am sorry to say I was absent.

I told the hon. Member for South Donegal that I had no power to control the discretion of the hon. Member if he persisted in going through the list of the Privy Council commenting upon each name; but that I thought it would be more consistent with respect to the Committee and the progress of Business if he did not pursue that line of criticism.

I understand, Sir; it is undesirable to discuss the composition of the Privy Council, and I bow to your admonition. We know it is undesirable to discuss it, for there is only one method of discussing it, and that apparently will not be dignified or consistent with the convenience of the Committee. But I may say that the composition of the Privy Council and its influence is most objectionable to the people of Ireland. We know the Councillors meet when they like, and do what they like; and at the time when the Lord Lieutenant leaves the country for private purposes of which we know nothing, we know the Great Seal goes into Commission, and a select number of the Council become absolute rulers of the country. The Attorney General is fond of alluding to the whole and undivided responsibility that will rest upon the Executive Government for the operation of this Act; but then, again, it appears they will share the responsibility with this shadowy mythical Body; while, at the same time, the Government declare that this Body will perform no useful functions under the Act. It seems idle to expect that our arguments will be met; and I hope, therefore, we may go to a Division, and I hope we shall have an opportunity, in "another place," where the Rules of Order and the necessity for going on so fast is not so urgent, to discuss the formation and composition of this useless Body.

I would suggest that we should pass on to some other subject. The real truth is, that the question of a thing being done with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland is not material. It is well known, both in England and Scotland, that there are certain acts which, for purpose of greater solemnity, are supposed to be done by the "Queen in Council." I do not know whether anybody imagines that these acts are done after the Council is called together to discuss them. The fact is, the act is the act of the Department, and for which the Head of that Department is responsible. For purposes of greater solemnity and circumstance in matters of higher importance, a thing is declared to be done by the Queen in Council; but it is not the act of the Privy Council. Those who have occupied positions of responsibility know that the passing of an Act in Council is a mere formality, and that the whole responsibility rests with the Minister to whose Department the Act belongs. It is not material to discuss this point. We all know that the Privy Council in Ireland performs the same functions as the Privy Council in England to which I have referred. It is merely designating the act as one of particular solemnity and importance to declare that an Order or a Proclamation is promulgated by the Queen or the Lord Lieutenant in Council; it is a formal act for which the Ministry is responsible.

Before we go to a Division, let me just point out how time has been occupied within the period the House has allotted for this discussion in Committee. For an hour before 2 o'clock this morning, and for another hour since we met to-day, have hon. Members kept up a discussion on this wholly immaterial point. It has been raised two or three times previously, and answers have been given to the same effect as that we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and precisely the same language was used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne on May 27, 1886, when the same phrase was introduced into the Arms Act, that the action of the Privy Council was merely formal, but that it was the form which the Legislature had from time to time deemed it desirable the Lord Lieutenant should employ in issuing a Proclamation. Two or three nights ago the same point arose when my hon. Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) was asked about the action of the Judges in such matters, and my right hon. Friend answered there was nothing of the kind; and I have said the same thing myself on more than one occasion. The discussion was continued last night until Progress was reported; and to-day we have the same speeches again and again, the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) going through and analyzing a long list of Privy Councillors, until you, Sir, called his attention to the fact that, though you could not control his discretion, the course he adopted was certainly unbecoming. His example has been followed. I mention this in face of the accusations freely made against the Government that they have restricted the time for the discussion of material questions.

I do not know whether we are going to have a Division now; but I may mention that, when the Leader of the House moved to report Progress yesterday, he acknowledged we were upon a discussion that would probably occupy some time—

The hon. Member will excuse me. I observed that one or two Members rose to speak, and I thought it unreasonable that the Committee should continue a long Sitting in view of the fact that we were to meet at an early hour this day. That was my sole reason; not that I attached high importance to this point.

I find no fault with the right hon. Gentleman for moving to report Progress; but in doing so he made no protest, and seemed to anticipate that the point raised would last for some time. I do not propose to continue that discussion now, and do not rise for that purpose, but to say a word or two in reply to the Attorney General for Ireland. He finds fault with us that we persistently discuss the question of the Irish Privy Council whenever it turns up. We mean to continue to do so, and for the reason that it is only in this indirect way we can arrive at any discussion of the machinery of the Castle at Dublin. It is not in the slightest degree an answer to us to say that it is a merely formal matter, and that Proclamations have been issued in this form from time immemorial; our contention is that the Castle at Dublin has been a curse to the country. We feel very strongly on this matter, and this is why we are forced to assail the Castle machinery and take advantage of every direct or indirect opportunity to expose, as well as we are able, the pernicious character of that machinery. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Government do not seek and have not sought to make any defence for the existence of the Irish Privy Council. If the Irish Privy Council be a mere formality, if it is an utterly useless body, as in the contention of the Government it is, for it has really no functions to discharge—

Allow me to say that it is not so. The Privy Council have most important duties to discharge, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne referred to these on the occasion to which I have referred in May, 1886. The Council have many and important judicial functions under various Statutes; but there are cases both in England and Ireland where their action is purely formal.

That only shows the importance of the question underlying this Amendment. If the action is to be merely formal in this matter, and if the name of the Privy Council is disliked and distrusted by the people of Ireland, why in the name of goodness wrangle over the name—why not drop it if it serves no purpose? But we do not believe this. We believe that, notwithstanding all that is alleged by the Government, that the Privy Council does exercise a certain malign influence at Dublin Castle. It is said the action of the Body is merely formal; but Members of it gather round the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for the time being, and by the mere fact of their existence as a Body with a consultative voice, and their knowledge of the country and Irish matters, they exercise influence over the English officials. We object to that. Then we are met with the reply that these words in the clause are practically valueless, that the action of the Privy Council is merely formal. This is no argument or defence, and therefore we prolonged the discussion. This and all other discussions on the point would be avoided if you struck out the Privy Council altogether from the Bill. The only reason you give us for not doing so is that it has been retained from time immemorial; that is your contention when Dublin Castle has become the mark for the abuse of every section of English politicians! Is it because this is an old red tape formula, that without any other consideration it is to be rammed down our throats? Why persist in retaining these words, and at the same time ask the Committee to believe that the Privy Council will have no influence? View it in a common-sense manner, and if the words are useless, drop the words. I do not desire that the Committee should go on with the discus- sion now; but I give the Government warning that upon every introduction of any provision for the Irish Privy Council taking part in the functions of government, they may expect a prolonged discussion.

The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has referred to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) on introducing the Arms Act; but I would point out that, in that case, there was an important difference. We knew perfectly well, that with the then Government in Office, that the Privy Council, which it is irregular to criticize in any manner—

Order, order! I have given no such ruling as that.

Which you, Sir, consider it is more advisable not to criticize in detail, an intimation we desire to accept. We knew that this Privy Council would have no influence whatever over the then Government. But the position now is quite different. Even though the Council may not meet from day to day to originate and organize a policy of repression against the rights of the Irish people, yet they retain a locus standi from their constitution, and will use their influence to extend the system of oppression. In face of the intimation that it is undesirable to criticize in detail the composition of that Body, it is idle to continue the discussion or go to a Division, and I will, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I simply rise to say, with reference to the lecture we have received from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, that we have listened to it with the greatest possible composure. I hope he will allow us to tell him that we believe we know our own business best, and repudiate his right to lecture us on any subject whatever. If there was ground for any lecture at all, it should have been administered to his own supporter—that eminent Liberal Unionist (Mr. Heneage)—who first placed this Amendment on the Paper, and then, in a manner characteristic of his Party, ran away from it. But if he ran away from his Amendment, that was no reason why we, having put a similar Amendment down with lull consideration, should run away from ours.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

As we have got the assurance that the Judges will not sit at the Council Board, it is not necessary for me to move my Amendment.

I do not propose to move my Amendment if I have any intimation that it is the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness to move his.

, &c.) said, it was his intention to do so.

Then, I do not move.

I am prepared to take the same course, and I hope this action of my hon. Friends and myself will be properly appreciated by those opposite who perpetually charge us with waste of time. It is unnecessary for us to move or discuss Amendments in a similar sense when we know that another Amendment is arranged for acceptance, and whatever we might urge in favour of our own Amendment the result will be the same in the end. It will, therefore, serve no purpose for me to trouble the Committee when the Government have decided.

, &c.): I rise to move the Amendment that stands in my name. I stated my reasons fully last night, and do not propose to repeat them now.

Amendment proposed,

In page 5, line 12, to leave out from the word "declare" to the word "expires," and insert the words "to be dangerous any such association or associations named or described in such proclamation."—( Mr. Finlay. )

Amendment proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

We accept this; it is consequential on the Amendment agreed to last night.

Question put, and negatived; words left out.

Question proposed, "That those words be added."

I beg to move to amend the Amendment, by striking out the words "or associations." I do not think it would be a proper thing for the Government to do to take on themselves to suppress what might be associations of a widely different character by one Proclamation. For instance, this might arise—that a Government, if an impartial Government, might take on itself to say—"Here in one county is a Nationalist Association—a very strong one; and here again is an Orange Association—a very strong one; and we, by one Proclamation, will suppress both." Then, when the Proclamation comes before Parliament, it is understood as a Proclamation which stands as a whole, and you cannot enter into a discussion as affecting one single association. What I propose is this—that if the Government want to suppress the different associations they shall do so by distinct Proclamations. There is nothing unreasonable in that. If they want to suppress them at the same time no inconvenience will result—Parliament will not have to be summoned more than once. If they want to suppress different associations at the same time, let them issue the Proclamations at the same time. No advantage will be gained by including more associations than one in the same Proclamation, and, therefore, I beg to move to omit the words "or associations."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or associations."—( Mr. Maurice Healy. )

Question proposed, "That the words 'or associations' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

I think it will be better to retain these words. Nothing would be gained by the alteration proposed. If Parliament took objection to a Proclamation, it would, of course, fall to the ground.

I cannot think that the proposed Amendment is one of great moment. At the same time I am inclined to support it, because its tendency is to make the act of Proclamation of greater importance and significance. It is perhaps as well that the Lord Lieutenant should not be at liberty to group associations in a Proclamation, and, therefore, I shall support the Amendment.

I do not at all agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his estimate of this Amendment. I think it is an important one, and I do not see why the Government should not accept it. Let us look at the practical result of this Amendment, an Amendment which I am very glad my hon. Friend (Mr. Maurice Healy) has had the astuteness to propose. Suppose, what is very likely to occur, a portion of the County of Kerry is the first district to be proclaimed. In that county there is at least one association—the Government may know there are several associations—of a most dangerous and objectionable character formed for the commission of crime and outrage. Now, the Government may proclaim the County of Kerry, specifying in their Proclamation certain associations of Moonlighters and others indicated in the evidence given before the Cowper Commission, and which the police officers refused to name in the interest of public order. We will suppose that there are five or six secret organizations in the County of Kerry for the purpose of committing outrage. Now, the Government may desire to have these associations proclaimed, and they may, as they very probably will, include in their Proclamation the association known as the National League. Now, if there is one thing we protest more than another it is that the National League is inimical and hostile to all associations for the purpose of commiting outrage, and yet it is exceedingly probable the Government will include the National League and other legitimate organizations in their Proclamations. Let me examine how the clause will work, as proposed to be amended by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). This Proclamation will be laid before Parliament; but it will not be competent for Parliament to interfere with the Proclamation piecemeal; they must accept the Proclamation as a whole or they must reject it as a whole. The Question will be put in this House, will you reject a Proclamation of the Kerry Moonlighters' Association? Now, is that a fair way to discuss matters in this House? It practically deprives this House of all power of criticism in this matter for the Chief Secretary to stand up and say that this House may, if it thinks that an association has been improperly included in the Proclamation, throw out the whole Proclamation, and then the Government may issue a fresh Proclamation. Was there ever a more clumsy mode of proceeding? The proposed Amendment, which will leave the hands of the Government absolutely free in this matter, provides that if the Government wish to proclaim two or three associations they shall issue two or three Proclamations, so that this House will be able to deal with each Proclamation on its own merits. The proposed Amendment ties their hands in no respect and will leave the House unfettered, and it will protect the Government if, in the minds of the majority of this House, they have made an error. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has nothing to say against our Amendment, and yet he declines to accept it. The only reason, I suppose, for his not accepting it is that it has been proposed by an Irish Member.

I think it is as well that it should be pointed out that, according to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), it will be necessary that each association shall be described in the Proclamation. An observation fell from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) in moving this Amendment to which I think it is necessary to refer. He spoke of the Government including two hostile associations in one Proclamation. Now, suppose the Government came to the conclusion that there were two conflicting bodies or associations differing in politics in Ireland, it would be very desirable to show that in the same Proclamation, and throw upon Parliament the responsibility of accepting or rejecting the Proclamation of both.

The hon and learned Gentleman takes up a most extraordinary position; but there is one good purpose which would be served by refusing my Amendment, and that is, that the Executive Government in Ireland may put Parliament in a dilemma. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken the case which I suggested—namely, the issuing of one Proclamation to suppress at the same time the National League and the Orange Association. He virtually admitted that by taking that course the Executive would place Parliament in a corner, because Parliament could not consider each association on its own merits, but must stand or fall by the whole as a whole. I say that is a monstrous suggestion. The notion, that the government in Ireland is to have this opportunity of putting Parliament in the position of not inquiring whether one of these associations may not be a perfectly legal and proper association, and that if either is a bad association you must suppress both of them, is monstrous. That is, however, the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But now apply the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), which is a more possible case than that I have just referred to. Let us suppose that there is an association called the Invincibles formed in Dublin, and that the Government very properly wish to suppress it. Well, Sir, at the same time that they do suppress it they may take the opportunity of putting in their Proclamation the suppression of the National League, and then, Sir, the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is this—that if the Government take that course their object will be to place Parliament in the position that they cannot examine the Proclamation, but that if they agree with the Government in suppressing one they must agree to the suppression of both. That is a very frank and candid declaration. It practically amounts to an admission of the whole argument of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, and I respectfully invite an expression of the opinion of hon. and learned Gentlemen who moved this Amendment on this state of things. He seems to have recognized the real circumstances of the present case, he seems to have recognized the fact that this is really a Government Amendment, and he has allowed it to be dealt with by the Government, because he has abandoned the usual course which is taken when an Amendment is criticized and has not attempted to defend his own Amendment. He has allowed that burden to fall upon the real parent of the Amendment—namely, the right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Government Bench. I do not know whether the result will be valuable, but, at any rate, it will be curious to know the opinion of the nominal author of the Amendment on the point which is now raised. Let it be clearly understood that no possible inconvenience can result from the acceptance of my Amendment. In the case of the previous Amendment it was suggested that inconvenience would result because the acceptance of the Amendment would mean that Parliament would have to be repeatedly summoned to consider what was practically the same question. Nothing of the kind can follow if my Amendment is accepted, because if it should happen that the Government should contemporaneously desire to suppress two separate associations, there is nothing to prevent them doing it by two separate Proclamations and calling Parliament together to consider the two Proclamations at the same time. I can conceive that which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says is perfectly true so far as the Government is concerned—namely, that nothing would be gained by accepting this Amendment. That I understand to be the sum and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but however this matter may affect the Government public liberty will gain considerably by the acceptance of this Amendment, and that is the aspect from which we view this Amendment.

I rise to say a very few words in answer to the appeal made to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy). Before saying them, I desire to say this, that no suggestion can be more erroneous than that conveyed by his reference to me as being only nominally the author of this Amendment. As to his appeal to me in reference to his Amendment I desire to say this, I did not rise to speak to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman because I do not wish to speak in this Committee oftener than is necessary, but as he has appealed to me I desire to say, that I do not see that anything can be gained by adopting the Amendment he has suggested. What is desired is this, that if there are dangerous associations in Ireland the Lord Lieutenant should have the power to make orders putting them down, and it is desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should name in his special Proclamation the associations he desires to have power to deal with. If there are several associations in which he wishes to have power to deal, I think he should name them all at once in the same Proclamation, and I cannot see that anything can be gained by having separate special Proclamations as suggested.

I think that one great value of this discussion is that it teaches us how we are to go about it if we desire to obtain the adoption of an Amendment to this Bill. It is not by arguing an Amendment across the Floor of this House, but by interviewing in the Lobby or elsewhere some Member of the Liberal Unionist Party, because if before moving an Amendment we can get the assent to it of the least important Member of the 76 hon. Gentlemen who keep the Government in Office and power we can get anything we want. [An hon. MEMBER: There are only 70.] I believe there are only 70, but if we can successfully interview one of the 70, be he the smallest in importance in the whole lot, we can secure the Government as well. Now, my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork has suggested that the Liberal Unionist Member who proposed this Amendment was not the real author of it, but that the Government were. My opinion is different to that of my hon. Friend. I regard this as a distinctly Liberal Unionist Amendment; the object of it being to confound the several associations in Ireland to which the Government take objection in the one condemnation, so as to discredit, in the minds of the English people, the National League. The best way to discredit the National League is to mix it up with murderous societies, and the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) is to enable the Government to accomplish that object. The Government, in proclaiming any branch of the National League, claim the right to involve with it in the same condemnation some murderous society which nobody can defend, and that is precisely the object the hon. and learned Gentleman has in view. I maintain that it is a thoroughly disgraceful object, but I am not surprised at it when I recollect the quarter from which it is advocated.

When public meetings and counter public meetings were proclaimed in Ulster formerly, it was the habit to issue two separate Proclamations to prohibit those meetings, and I do not see why that which was the custom of the Government in 1883 should be departed from now. Under the Amendment, as it stands, we might have the extraordinary sight of a Proclamation suppressing at the same time the National League and the Orange Institution. We might have the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) linked together as two evilly disposed persons. So far the Government have given no reason why they should obstinately adhere to the exact words of the original Amendment. I was glad to see that, when he rose, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not very dogmatic on the point; but as the discussion went on, and when the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland rose, we found the Government were disposed to stick closely to the words of the original Amendment, though they were unable to find any additional argument in favour of them. What objection can there be to issue separate Proclamations against each separate association that the Government wish to proclaim. Surely there is no extra trouble in the matter to speak of. There is no great extra labour in the Lord Lieutenant or the Lords Justices signing half-a-dozen Proclamations instead of one. They have not very much to do, and I am sure can easily afford the time to affix their signatures to a few additional Proclamations. The real object in the mind of the Government is, whatever the original view of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) may have been, to stigmatize certain associations in Ireland by bracketting them with associations formed for the purpose of committing crime. If you proclaim the National League in Kerry and the Moonlighters in the same Proclamation, the object will be to stigmatize the National League by an alliance with the Moonlighters. I am not going the length of laying the whole responsibility of this matter upon the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness. He cannot have foreseen the exact consequence of his own words; but certainly, now that we have explained them, I hope he will see his way to support our Amendment, and I am not altogether without hope that the Government may see their way to change their minds upon the subject. If they did, it would certainly be conducive to a better administration in Ireland.

It would not be in order to attribute any unworthy motive to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) in proposing his Amendment, and I would not be inclined to do so, whether it would be in Order or not. But it is a curious fact that, though this Amendment was under discussion for some time, the hon. and learned Gentleman never opened his mouth upon it until he got a lead from the Treasury Bench. Now, I ask the Committee to consider the position of affairs. I admit that the hon. and learned Member may have been actuated by the best motives, and if so, I shall only rejoice very sincerely at his political convalescence. In the speech he made early in the discussion upon this Bill, he called upon the Government to stand by the Bill, and now we find him proposing an Amendment. But we have to deal with the object of the Amendment. Now, the position is this, that certain associations, one, two, or 100, if necessary, are to be specified, or may be specified, in a single Proclamation, and the Government are now taking the power to join in one Proclamation, if they think fit, an assassination society, a national registration society, or a Liberal Unionist club, and to then come down to Parliament and, throwing the Proclamation on the Table, to say, take it or leave it. The Government wish to be able to say, you must take the whole, if not, you will be responsible for the failure of our policy in Ireland. The Government may say that they decline to put the Lord Lieutenant to the trouble of signing several distinct Proclamations of the several associations; but, of course, that is a ridiculous objection to the Amendment, and cannot be sustained for a moment. Then the Government may say that their object is to turn the clause into a libel machine; and surely no machine could be more libellous—no more libellous machine could be devised even by The Times newspaper or the Liberal Unionist —than the bracketting together of legitimate associations such as the National League and illegitimate associations such as the Moonlighters association, and having the various news agencies spreading the Proclamation broadcast over the whole of England. Now, I want to ask a single question, and it is this. I find here a most elaborate series of sub-sections — 2, 3, 4, 5, 6—all of which deal with these Proclamations. I allege, and I do not think it can be denied, that under this sub-section Parliament will not have the slightest real control over these Proclamations; and I want to know if this Amendment be accepted in its unaltered or unmodified form, whether it is the intention of the Government to strike out the other sub-sections as a mere farce, or to accept some Amendment which will enable Parliament to discriminate between the different associations named in a Proclamation, striking out one if they think it should be struck out, and leaving in the others?

In my opinion it would be exceedingly difficult to exaggerate the importance of this Amendment. If anything were required to justify the position we took up the other day, certainly what has occurred in Committee during the last half hour would be ample justification. This Amendment is of the very utmost importance, and it is of the utmost importance largely in view of the way in which this Bill is drafted. This clause has been discussed for a long time indeed, and yet I venture to say that there is not one man in 10 behind the Government who really realizes what this clause enables the Lord Lieutenant to do. Now, Sir, in order to do our best to bring home to the minds of the Committee the enormous importance of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), I must, at some length, point out to the Committee what these sections as they now stand, or as they would stand modified by the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), would permit the Lord Lieutenant to do. These two clauses of the Act, Clauses 6 and 7, work into each other in the most extraordinary fashion. Clause 6 enacts in the beginning that if the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied that any association exists in Ireland for a number of objects which we have frequently heard described the Lord Lieutenant by and with the advice of the Privy Council may from time to time declare that the provisions of the Act relating to dangerous associations shall come into force as from the date of such Proclamation, or from any later day specified. Now, what I want to impress upon the Committee is this, that in this Clause 6 the Lord Lieutenant is entitled to bring into force the provisions of this Act without limitation of place all over Ireland if he is satisfied there exists, in any part of Ireland, any association for the commission of crime. We all know that there exists in a small corner of Ireland, in a very limited area, an association which the Government have been struggling to put down for a long time past, and which carries on its operations by outrage and crime; and, therefore, the proposition put forward in this clause is to the effect—I do not think many Members of the Committee realize it—that the Lord Lieutenant, in view of the existence of an association in no matter how little a corner of Ireland, may issue a Proclamation putting in force, without limitation of area, the provisions of this Act as to dangerous associations. And it is that Proclamation which will be laid before the House of Commons, and upon which the issue will be raised. And the issue raised will be this, whether the Lord Lieutenant was justified in his belief that an association existed in any portion of Ireland having for its object the commission of crime and outrage. Observe what the other provisions of this clause are. The state of affairs will be this—a Proclamation will be laid before the then House specifying that the Lord Lieutenant having been satisfied that there exists an association in some part of Ireland for the commission of crime, has proclaimed that the provisions of this Act applying to dangerous associations shall be enforced, and this House will be asked to decide on that Proclamation. What will the Government have to say in justification of that Proclamation; they will simply have to call to the attention of the House the existence of a certain dangerous association in Kerry and in certain parts of Clare. They need not go a step beyond that. It will be useless for us to point out in this House that the great association in Ireland is free from crime; but the Go- vernment will have nothing more to do than show that the Lord Lieutenant is justified in applying the clause, on the ground that he is satisfied that a dangerous association exists. I say that the check which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland yesterday called our attention to is absolutely no check whatever. The existence of Moonlighters in Kerry would be a justification for the Lord Lieutenant proclaiming the whole of Ireland under this clause. When that Proclamation is made, and the debate has been taken on it after a fortnight what condition of things will arise in Ireland? Clause 7 says that from and after the date of such Proclamation, and as long as the same continues unrevoked or unexpired, the Lord Lieutenant may from time to time prohibit or suppress in a district any association which he believes to be a dangerous association. The Lord Lieutenant gets his power to apply his Proclamation on account of the Moonlighters in Kerry, and then he proclaims the National League, and he is perfectly right to do that under this clause. I say that we are entitled to look upon this Amendment as an Amendment of the utmost importance, and if the Government desire in any way to abridge this discussion, they ought to get up and state what safeguards they intend to insert in Clause 7 in order to prevent the monstrous state of things which I have described.

The Government have said throughout these discussions that their desire is simply to put down crime; but they have been charged over and over again with desiring to put down political combination in Ireland, and we find that every part of this Bill which can be used for the purpose of making war upon public opinion, and for the purpose of destroying their political opponents, is adhered to with the greatest pertinacity. I want to know what object the Government has in view in putting the clause into this particular form. Under the cover of Moonlighting in Kerry, which their opponents detest as much as they do, their desire is to suppress the National League; and they have not denied that under cover of that state of things in Kerry there will be a special Proclamation, involving the whole of Ireland. Having got his power, there is no doubt that the Lord Lieutenant will suppress every association which he deems to be dangerous; he may go any length, and even suppress the associations of the people in Ireland for the performance of their religious duties, and it is very likely that he will do so. However that may be, he can suppress any association whatever. It is said that these Proclamations must be approved by Parliament, or laid before Parliament. At the end of 21 days he would have power to suppress every hostile meeting and political association, make war on any political organization, and, indeed, suppress the whole public opinion of the country. The powers of this clause would be very useful to the Government in the case of an election. At the time of a General Election there are political associations in every county for the return of Members to this House, and no doubt the Government will be only too ready to interfere with them at the time. I should like to know what defence the Government have for this clause, which is clearly intended for the suppression of public opinion and political association. I cannot see that it would be much trouble to the Lord Lieutenant to issue two Proclamations instead of one, because the forms are kept ready printed, and there is nothing to do but to fill in the names of districts and associations. If that is not the argument on what other argument do the Government rely? Do they want to include all the various associations in Ireland in one Proclamation? I observe that in the drafting of this measure the Government have an exceeding fondness for general forms of expression, which of course allows them the greatest latitude in the application of the Act. It is this that we object to, because as has been frequently pointed out it is plain that their intention is not to put down crime, but to suppress their political opponents and stifle public opinion.

It is clear from the position taken up by the Government that their object is to confound political and criminal matters in Ireland. The Government cannot contend that there is no force in the argument used on this side of the House with regard to Kerry. The fact is well known that there is in that county and has been for years, a society working secretly and which is not in harmony with the National League, and it is also well known that I and others connected with the National League in Kerry have run serious risk of a personal character in resisting the endeavours of that society. I can quote from the evidence of the District Inspector, residing at Castleisland, and, I think, it will show the Committee that in respect of these associations there is a wide difference and counteraction. The outrages that have taken place in Kerry have been almost solely in that district, and the evidence of the Inspector is that "There is only one branch of the League practically working in that district." I can corroborate his statement, because the first force of the evictions came on that place, and the people who should have organized the League there neglected to do so, and what has taken place there is largely due to this fact. Then I draw particular attention to the evidence of the witness, who says that the National League "denounced land-grabbers," and that although they denounced the more violent forms of Boycotting, they did not think they should advise the people of Ireland to mix with land-grabbers. Sir, we do not for a moment pretend that we advise the people of Ireland to associate with them, but we do assert that there is a great difference between the advice which the National League gives to the people and the action which is taken by secret societies in these matters. In answer to another question the witness said, he "Would not attribute the Boycotting to the League at present, because it was so organized that it is unnecessary that the League should interfere." The witness then mentioned the fact that Mr. Davitt went to the district, to which the President replied—"lam very glad to hear that. Mr. Davitt is rather a celebrated character." Our contention all along has been that the men who work by secret means, who are bound together by secrecy, whose methods are violence, and who work in the night are a distinct class of persons, with whom, generally speaking, the great body of tenant farmers are not in sympathy at all. I find in the evidence the fact that some of them have subscribed to these associations; but a witness for the Crown says—"It is from terror, and not from sympathy that they have subscribed." I will take some further evidence, and this, I think, fully bears out the contention that is urged here to-day. The County Court Judge of Kerry says to the District Inspector—"Then there seems to be an organization exercising a stronger power over the tenants?"—and the witness says "Yes." In reply to the question "Have you any objection to state what that organization is?"—the witness says "I do not think it would be for the advantage of the country to state what it is." Now, the right hon. Gentleman cannot pretend to think that the witness had in his mind the National League, because the whole of his evidence up to that time related to the National League. Here you have the District Inspector, the man who procured the hanging of two men and the transportation out of the district of 79 others, the man who of all others knows the district, and who is one of the most capable officers in Ireland—this man draws a clear distinction between those who are working an organization of terror and the National League. When he is asked to name the organization exercising terror, he says that it would not be in the interests of justice that he should do so. That means, Sir, that he believes there is a secret association that he can put his thumb upon. What Her Majesty's Government want to do is, to make it necessary, when the secret society in Kerry is proclaimed, that the National League should be also named in the Proclamation. That is clearly the object of the Government, and they know it to be so as well as we do; but I think we should, at any rate, impress on the House and the country the fact that they are aiming at political combinations, and not aiming at it honestly, but by the unfair means of confounding their opponents with criminals. That has been the case with all Governments; from the beginning their action has been to confound their opponents who work in open day with criminals who work in the dark. What trouble will there be in issuing separate Proclamations? Will there not be hundreds and thousands of forms lying in Dublin Castle, and is it not idle to speak of the trouble of issuing separate Proclamations in place of writing the names of several societies in each? The right hon. Gentleman a short time ago said they might want to suppress two societies at the same time, and that the two must me taken together. I appeal to hon. Members as to whether that is not the most unconstitutional doctrine which has yet emanated from the Treasury Bench. I suppose there is no use in appealing to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not wish to say anything offensive to them, but I can hardly remember a question in connection with this Bill on which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite have exercised an intelligent vote. If that is not so, let the Government put up one man who can show that he has understood the point at issue, and give a reason for the vote he is about to give on this Amendment. You are putting it into the hands of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any society in Ireland, whether criminal or political, and our contention is that you should do justice to the political combination, that you should not confound it with the criminal organization, and that you should come to the House with a clear issue. We do not want to stand up in this House and defend Moonlighters, but if you place the combinations of tenant farmers side by side with them in your Proclamation, we shall be in this dilemma, that while we are defending our association, you will come down and say that the Irish Members are defending Moonlighting. I shall not detain the Committee further than to say that I shall lose all hope of awakening the conscience of Tory Members below the Gangway if we do not get a few intelligent votes from them in support of an Amendment for the purpose of enabling the Lord Lieutenant to discriminate between the organizations it is intended to proclaim.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 190; Noes 145: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 240.) [2.45 P.M.]

Question, "That the words 'to be dangerous any such association or associations named or described in such Proclamation,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

I desire to add, at the end of the last Amendment, these words—

"Provided that such Proclamation shall define the district or districts to which it applies."

I think this Proviso is necessary, because if it is not made in the case of a Proclamation relating to the National League, we shall have people in some part or parts of the country saying that the Proclamation does not apply to them, and the next thing we shall hear of will be that they are summoned before the Resident Magistrates and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. I do not know that it is necessary to detain the Committee at greater length than to say that my proposal appears especially reasonable, because when once the Proclamation is made under Clauses 6 and 7, no judicial tribunal will have any discretion to see whether a man has been guilty of bad conduct or taken part in any criminal proceedings. The Proclamation will preclude these questions being entered into and the man will be sentenced to hard labour. I think then it is necessary that the public should know precisely not only what associations are declared to be dangerous, but where they are declared to be dangerous. On the second reading of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that "The National League might be perfectly innocent in one district and dangerous in another;" and, therefore, I think if the right hon. Gentleman desires to maintain his opinion, that the Government are bound to accept this Amendment, which can do no harm to the Bill while it will make the meaning of the Proclamation clear.

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words, "Provided that such Proclamation shall define the district or districts to which it applies."—( Mr. Chance. )

The Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) which the Government have accepted, provides that associations made the subject of Proclamations shall be properly described. I need hardly say that the Lord Lieutenant, having regard to the circumstances of of these Proclamations, will lose no time in laying them before the House of Commons and House of Lords. The Proclamations will be subject to the approval of both Houses, and the Lord Lieutenant will therefore take care that they describe the associations they are directed against in a sufficiently distinct manner. I, therefore, have no apprehension, and I do not think the Committee will entertain any apprehension, that the Procla- mation is likely to be vague in its description of the associations which are deemed objectionable. It is necessary to take care that where it can be avoided there shall be no machinery in existence by which the result we hope to gain will be interfered with, and if this Amendment were accepted, it would certainly offer to unlawful associations a means of evading the effect of a Proclamation. If we accept this Amendment the clause will require not merely that an association shall be described in such a way as to show what the association is that the Proclamation refers to, but that the association shall be described by the limits of the district in which, it exists. Let us suppose an instance—let us suppose that an association exists—a nameless association—and that we are in a position to satisfy the House that it is a dangerous association. Supposing we obtain sufficient information with regard to it to proclaim it with a sufficient description to enable the House clearly to identify it. If we accept such an Amendment the only thing such an association would have to do to evade the operation of this clause would be to transfer its headquarters, to remove its officers and its papers, and everything connected with it across the borders of the county, say of Kerry, into the County Cork, so as to get out of the jurisdiction of the Proclamation. I do not say that it is the object of the hon. Member in moving this Amendment to enable unlawful associations to evade the operation of the clause in this way, but certainly that would be the result, and we, therefore, cannot accept the proposal. As I said, we have accepted an Amendment which will require an association to be adequately described as regards its name and character. We can go no further than that, and cannot undertake to limit the clause in the manner proposed.

The refusal of the Government to acquiesce in this Amendment is a condemnation of what we heard stated a short time ago as one of the leading principles of the Bill, which takes power to proclaim, not only individuals, but individual districts. The reasons the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given for not confining Proclamations to particular districts should be equally good against proscribing districts at all. Supposing the district of Castleisland was proclaimed, the Moonlighters would be able to prosecute their operations outside that district, and would be quite as mischievous in the one place as in the other. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments I, therefore, maintain should cut right through, or else he should modify them. He condemns one of the leading principles of the Bill, in order to support one of the small extravagancies that the Government claim under cover of this clause. Let us see what disadvantage could arrive, in any way, from the adoption of the principle of this Amendment. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Lord Lieutenant limiting an order; therefore, supposing an order is limited, and the Proclamation states that it shall be in force within the area of Castleisland, where, according to this Act, the magistrates are to have power to act in regard to offences committed in another district. These magistrates would be able to take up a Moonlighter in Donegal or Antrim and bring him up before the magistrates of Castleisland district, so that the Government would lose no power for the suppression of crime by limiting the orders under this clause to districts as well as to associations by name. By limiting the Proclamation to certain districts, in which the particular offences which you desire to put down take place, you will be limiting it to a class of people and to a class of offences which you desire to prosecute and put an end to. I would urge the Government, if they do not want to have one set of their arguments upsetting others, if they do not desire that the exigency of resisting a particular Amendment should force upon them an argument showing that their whole Bill is irrational, and if they would make their measure a little consistent with the principles of fair play, I would urge upon them to accept this particular Amendment.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that this clause, unless amended, will be inconsistent with a previous provision of the Bill; but that is not so, because all through the preceeding clauses you have it clearly laid down that the Lord Lieutenant can proclaim any part of Ireland for the purposes of putting those previous enactments in force, and that there the matter is to end—that is to say, that his decision is not to be reviewed by Parliament. If the Lord Lieutenant conceives that one Proclamation is not sufficient he can immediately issue another covering a new or a larger district. The hon. and learned Member will see that under the present clause it is necessary, whenever a Proclamation is issued, that Parliament should be consulted—that it should be called together for the purpose of considering the action of the Government if it does not happen to be sitting at the time. Assuming that a Proclamation laid before Parliament stated that an association in Kerry was a dangerous one, after Parliament had dealt with that Proclamation it might prorogue, and the day after the Prorogation the headquarters of the association and all officers might be moved from Kerry to another county. In order to touch that association it would then be necessary to issue another Proclamation, and Parliament would again be called upon to pronounce an opinion upon it. It would be necessary to go through all these forms again, though, to all intents and purposes, the association to be proclaimed will be the one previously proclaimed. This process might be repeated over and over again. I therefore submit that the Amendment is one which it is impossible to accept.

The argument of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland is this—that the Government having agreed to this extraordinary check of Parliamentary sanction to the issue of the Proclamation under the 6th clause, that check shall be rendered practically nugatory by making the Proclamation as vague and as wide as possible. That is really the effect of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He says that under the 5th section the Lord Lieutenant can proclaim a district, and there the matter is at an end—that his action is not subject to the review of Parliament, and that, therefore, the Lord Lieutenant, being practically irresponsible, can do what he likes. He maintains that if one Proclamation is not enough the Lord Lieutenant can issue another; but that it would not be possible for him to take that course under the 6th section, because under that section his action is open to the review of Parliament. He contends that it is ne- cessary, therefore, that the clause should be as vague as possible, and unlimited as regards the area as proposed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman submits that it would be inconvenient for the Government to accept the Amendment; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot expect us to accept that reason as satisfactory and adequate. It is because the Amendment would place inconvenient limitations upon the Lord Lieutenant that we propose it to the Committee. The point raised by my hon. Friend has not been met, and I submit that it is a substantial point. That point is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland have laid it down that it is quite possible that a particular association may be a perfectly harmless one in one county and a noxious and dangerous association in another county. There is no use talking at large. We all know what the association is that is in the mind of the Government, and the sooner we come down to facts and deal with these facts the better. Let us not talk generally about associations, but let us talk about the National League. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says the National League may be a dangerous association in one county and a perfectly harmless one in another, and, of course, that is an absolutely sound proposition, and one which no one will for a moment attempt to dispute. But what follows from it? Assuming that this is the fact, and that the National League is a dangerous association in one county of Ireland but is a harmless association in another county, and, in fact, all through Ireland, what follows? Why, that the Lord Lieutenant might issue a Proclamation suppressing the National League. He will justify that action by referring to the character of the organization in one county, notwithstanding that all over the rest of Ireland the association might be perfectly harmless. All he will have to say will be—"I wish to suppress the National League in the County of Kerry or the County of Galway—its members have made wild and seditious speeches, and the county is bordering on revolution in consequence; we cannot allow that state of things to go on; therefore we desire to suppress the National League." If it is only in consequence of the local acts of a particular branch of the National League that the Government would desire these powers, then, I say, limit the powers to that particular district where they are said to be wanted. Let us have introduced into the body of the clause the limitation that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says is a perfectly proper and reasonable limitation. Let us have admitted on the face of the Bill what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says is a principle which should regulate the conduct of the Executive in Ireland. If they want powers to apply only to a particular district let the fact be placed before Parliament in the Proclamation. Is it not monstrous to ask that where the Government induce Parliament to sanction a Proclamation under this section by a description of proceedings in one perfectly limited locality in Ireland, that they should, therefore, take powers to suppress a particular association all over Ireland by enacting that these powers shall extend all over the country quite irrespective of the action of the association? That is the point the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has to meet, and that is the point he has studiously avoided meeting. What he has said as to the danger if you limit your Proclamation to one county of an association transferring its operations to an adjoining county is, practically, wide of the mark. I say, if that is so, what you have to deal with is not the old association, but the new association. If the Government find that an association in Kerry is dangerous, it is dangerous because of its operations in Kerry. If there is disorder and turbulence, it is in Kerry that the disorder and turbulence exists. Then, let the Government take power to suppress that disorder and turbulence in Kerry, and do not let them ask the Legislature to suppress prospective disorder and turbulence in Kerry by the extraordinary means proposed in this clause. Do not let the Government assume that there is going to be disorder and turbulence at some future and nebulous time where no such disorder exists at the present moment. Otherwise, it amounts to this—that although nine-tenths of the country may be perfectly peaceable, the Government are going to assume that, notwithstanding that state of peace and order which might prevail there, that at some future time which no one knows anything of but themselves a different state of things may arise, and it is necessary for them to take powers in advance to deal with that exceptional state of things. I say that it is time enough to bid the old boy good day when you meet him—it is quite time to take power to deal with turbulence and disorder when it arises, and what we ask is that the Government should limit their Proclamation in a manner which would give them ample power to deal with existing crises, but which will tie their hands so far as enabling them to deal speculatively with any future crises that may arise is concerned. We wish to tie their hands so as to prevent them extending, under false pretences, as one may say, the extraordinary power that a special Proclamation would give to a district which was not in their minds when they issued the Proclamation, and the application of the Proclamation to which district was never discussed by Parliament, and with regard to which, if they wish to have a special Proclamation dealing with it, it is only right and proper that it should be dealt with as a new matter, and should be discussed by Parliament in connection with a new Proclamation. When Proclamations are applied to new districts they should come under the purview of Parliament, and Parliament should be able to discuss them and deal with them.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 152; Noes 217: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 241.) [3.40 P.M.]

I wish, Sir, to add as a Proviso after the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) the words—

"Provided that every such Proclamation shall state the grounds upon which any association named therein is declared to be a dangerous association."

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) will see what the object of that Amendment is. I do not desire that the Lord Lieutenant should be compelled to declare the specific acts that have caused the issue of the Proclamation, but I do wish him to specify under which of the sub-heads set forth in the earlier part of the clause he is going to suppress the association—for instance, I think it desirable that he should say whether he desires to suppress an association because it is formed for the commission of crime; or whether he desires to suppress it because it encourages or aids persons to commit crime; or whether it is because it promotes or incites to acts of violence or intimidation; or whether it is because it interferes with the administration of the law, or because it disturbs the maintenance of law and order? The object of my Amendment is plain. I do not desire it to be in the power of the Executive in Ireland to confound an association formed merely for criminal objects with an association formed for what I may call political objects. I do not wish that the Governnment of the day or the Executive in Ireland should be permitted to confound the National League with the murder societies formed at the time of the Invincible Association. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that that is reasonable. My Amendment does not place any limitation on the power of the Lord Lieutenant, but all that it asks is that he should be compelled to say under which of the five sub-heads in Section 6, forming the powers which are given by this section, he is acting upon in issuing any Proclamation, and thereby to enable Parliament to discuss the Proclamation when it afterwards comes on to be discussed when Addresses are moved. It would be impossible for Parliament adequately to discuss these matters unless it has before it information of this kind, because, if the Government have power to lurk behind any one of these five sub-heads without saying which they rely on, there will be no discussion possible.

Amendment proposed,

In page 5, after the words last inserted to insert the words—"Provided that every such Proclamation should state the grounds upon which any association named therein is declared to be a dangerous association."—( Mr. Maurice Healy. )

Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."

If this Amendment were adopted in the form in which the hon. Gentleman moves it, it would go much beyond what in his speech he states is its object. It appears to me to be quite clear that, if that Amendment were accepted, it would be necessary that the Proclamation should contain a great deal of information which it is no doubt desirable that the House should have, but which would be altogether unsuitable for a Proclamation. The hon. Gentleman refers to the sub-heads of Clause 6, and says it should be stated in the Proclamation under what sub-head the Lord Lieutenant thinks that the association is dangerous. Well, I would point out that if such an Amendment as that which is proposed were inserted, it would probably lead to some formal declaration, which would probably be used in every case embracing the whole five heads. I do not think that any statement of such a loose kind would be calculated to effect the object of the hon. Member. If an association is conceived to be a dangerous association, it may, to a certain extent, be supposed to come under all five heads, and it may not be thought proper to discriminate between one and the other. All these sub-heads will probably combine, in the opinion of the Executive, to make an association dangerous. Immediately after a Proclamation is issued, Parliament will have an opportunity of discussing the matter fully, and that will prevent the danger of an indefinite Proclamation being issued for the reason that those who represent the Irish Government will have to set forth the grounds of the Proclamation clearly and distinctly. They will be asked to state the sub-head under which the Proclamation is issued, and they will have to give an answer, and in that way the whole matter will be discussed. The Irish Government will have to enter into the grounds, reasons, and circumstances on which the Proclamation is issued. That is the proper way for hon. Members to arrive at the facts which led to the issue of the Proclamation—that is the way in which the matter should be brought forward. In that way the House will have an opportunity of knowing what is being done, and that is the reason why we resist this proposal.

The argument of the right hon. And learned Attorney General for Ireland went over a very large amount of ground, but it was exceedingly vague and highly unsatisfactory. I presume that when the Lord Lieutenant claims, under the power given by this clause, to issue a special Proclamation, he will know why he does it. In the examination he will have to make—in the conscientious examination he will have to make under the guidance of the Law Officer of the Crown, the Lord Chancellor—he will take into consideration the powers contained in this measure. They will have to decide amongst themselves under what clauses of the Act the Proclamation is to issue. They will have to decide whether it will be under Clause 1,2, 3, or 4, or any other of the sub-heads of Clause 6. The Lord Lieutenant will have no difficulty in stating under what head of the clause the Proclamation is issued. Then the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, feeling the ground of his defence extremely weak, went on to point out that really the object of my hon. Friend will be attained without this Amendment. He says that when Proclamations are issued under this clause they will have to be discussed shortly after their announcement, and that then the Irish Executive in this House will have to state fully and in detail all the reasons and the causes for which the Proclamation has been put into effect. "Well, that is not satisfactory by any means, because we know very well that the defence that sometimes comes from the Treasury Bench, especially on Irish matters, is one that we may call peculiar. We should like to know beforehand what the ground is upon which the Proclamation is issued—that is to say, we should like to know what the accusation is that is about to be made against a particular association or associations that may have been proclaimed, because, unless we know beforehand, we shall be at this disadvantage when any debate may arise in this House upon the Proclamation: the present or some other Attorney General for Ireland will rise in his place and enlighten the House and the Irish Members, who will be more particularly interested in the question than anyone else, for the first time, as to the reason why the Proclamation has been issued. If we had any great confidence in the reasons which are given by the Government, and especially if we had any great confidence in the soundness of the evidence produced by the Government, that would answer very well; but I remember, and most of the Members of this House will remember, the gross failure of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the evidence he attempted to impress us with on the second reading of the Bill. The House was astounded, not only by the contradictions which were offered, but by the proofs which were given of the want of foundation for the statements and anecdotes upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary attempted to found his Bill. The Committee will remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) rose in his place in order to cover the arrears and the default of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary; and he boasted that the charges he was about to produce to the House were facts, and could not be denied. Thereupon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I lay emphasis upon this, because it is the sort of thing which will happen again—came down with a description of a case in which a midwife had refused to attend an unfortunate person in labour, in consequence of which melancholy results had been brought about. That was quoted as a case of Boycotting. That case rather astonished the House for the time being. It was sprung upon us, and it took two or three days to ascertain whether there was any truth in the story or not. Well, what was the result of investigation into the truth of this story—what was the result of this evidence given in defence of the Government, just as evidence will be given in future by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government? Why this evidence, for which he vouched as a Minister of the Crown—this evidence, which he brought forward as certain evidence, turned out to be false; and the result of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that the midwife to whom reference was made is now bringing an action against the Chief Secretary for slander, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, being frightened by this midwife, refuses to accept service. Well, Sir, that piece of evidence that I have so described was produced in this House, and it made an effect upon the House, because it was sprung upon us, and it was impossible at the moment to say whether or not it was true. Everyone admitted that if it were true it was a sample of Boycotting of the most cruel and cowardly description imaginable. The result of our inquiries, however, was to show that the whole thing was untrue from beginning to end. Well, now, if evidence for the accuracy of which a high Minister of the Crown has taken the trouble to vouch, and has put forward on his responsibility, can be deceptive and can mislead the House, what great confidence can we have in the evidence that we shall receive from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland on similar occasions when defending a Proclamation? Of course, I do not intend for a moment to insinuate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would state what is untrue; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman, like every other official, has to depend upon information supplied to him. We shall have then this state of things. A special Proclamation will be in force; we shall discuss it, as the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says, but we shall come to the discussion without the faintest idea or without the faintest conception as to what the statement or accusation against the association may be, and a vote will be taken at the end of that simple discussion. Suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman is again misinformed—and it is now admitted that that right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were misled—we shall be in this position—that the Proclamation will be confirmed in this House on the virtue of a statement or on the virtue of evidence given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman which may subsequently prove to be absolutely false. All that we ask for is this—let us have some indication of the kind of accusation which is going to be made. Nobody asks that the whole evidence shall be put into the Proclamation. It would, of course, be impossible to do that. It would be too long and too detailed. But, at least, let us know whether any association has been proclaimed for Boycotting or for something more serious than that. We do not ask for the evidence, but we ask for an indication of the reasons and grounds upon which the Proclamation has been issued. I think I have given the right hon. and learned Gentleman a very fair answer to his advocacy of the clause as it stands. I would ask him, as representing the Government—as he usually does on these matters, except when someone gets up to move the clôture—as this is to be a permanent Act, and he does not wish it to be misused, I would ask him, in justice, to say why he does not consent to such an Amendment as this? He can amend the Amendment as he likes; but, at all events, some Proviso should be added declaring that where an association has been proclaimed some information should be given to the House as to the cause of that Proclamation, in order that evidence may be obtained to enable adequate discussion to take place.

I pointed to the uselessness of the Amendment, and said that it would contain matters which would have to be submitted to the House by the Executive for approval. The hon. Gentleman says that he desires detailed information in the Proclamation; but if it were rendered necessary that such detailed information should be given, it would probably take some set form which would be inserted in the Proclamation mechanically in every case.

I did not say what the right hon. and learned Gentleman imputes to me—that was just what I did not say. I asked that the Proclamation should contain some information as to the clause, or sub-section, or whatever it may be, of the Act under which the Proclamation is issued. I distinctly said I did not want detailed information. If an association has been proclaimed on account of Boycotting, supposing that that is the only ground which can be discovered, we can have some opportunity of finding out whether there has been any Boycotting or not. We should have that opportunity in order to prevent decisions being given in this House on stories and anecdotes given on Ministerial responsibility—stories and anecdotes that are afterwards admitted to be untrue from beginning to end, and which the Ministers who retailed them to us will not attempt now to rise in this House to justify by a single word.

I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has so low an opinion of the officials in Dublin Castle who will have to discharge the duties under this Act. Of course, he knows more about the matter than I do, and I dare say any declaration that he makes, on a subject of this kind, is entitled to more weight than anything which can be urged from these Benches. But I do say that if we ventured to allege as even a possibility that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says would be a practice, if this Amendment were adopted, hon. Gentlemen opposite would get up and howl at us for daring to make a suggestion of this kind. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say? Why, he says that if my Amendment were adopted, it would be the duty of the Lord Lieutenant to specify in his Proclamation under which of these sub-heads he considered a particular association should be proclaimed, and that then all the Dublin Castle officials would do would be to print a common form setting forth not merely one of the grounds, but the whole of them in bulk, like the pleadings in an action, denying everything and asserting everything. He seems to think that is the proper kind of charge to make against the officials of Dublin Castle, who are being trusted with the administration of this Act. I should have said that if the duty were placed upon the shoulders of the Lord Lieutenant of specifying under what head an association is proclaimed, the Lord Lieutenant would discharge that duty in a conscientious manner. I have said that before the Lord Lieutenant did exercise the powers contained in this clause he would have in his own mind a clear idea of what it was in the character of the association to which he objected, and that, having that clear idea in his own mind, it would not be beyond his power to specify that opinion clearly on the face of the Proclamation. For instance, if he were proclaiming an association like the Invincible Association, he would say that it was an association carrying on operations for or by the commission of crimes. On the other hand, if his Proclamation were directed against a branch of the National League which he considered was too active in Boycotting, or interfering with evictions, or encouraging people to obstruct the Sheriff, then, in the words of the Act, he would say that an association was proclaimed for interfering with the administration of the law, or disturbing the maintenance of law and order. I cannot imagine that there would be any difficulty in doing this; but what I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say is, that so reckless would be the officials who administer this Act that, instead of taking that course, they would print a common form of Proclamation charging all conceivable iniquities against the association they are proclaiming, and letting the Proclamation come in this form before the House of Commons. Now, I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what the advantages of my Amendment, in my view, if it were adopted, would be. I say, Sir, that those advantages are two. I say that, in the first place, it would compel the Executive in Dublin to have some clearly defined idea of what they are doing. It would compel them to look before them, and to examine the facts, and to see what powers they had under this clause, and when they examined into the circumstances of the case, and saw what powers they had, then they would issue their Proclamation. It would require them, after they had made up their minds that an association was to be struck at, to say under what head it should be proclaimed. That would be one advantage, and I persist in thinking that there would be some small hold upon the Dublin Castle officials for their discharging their duty properly, notwithstanding the mean opinion the right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed of them. Then there would be the additional advantage that it would raise a clear issue to be tried in this House when the Proclamation came before the House for discussion. At present it must be remembered that the parties attacking a Proclamation will be acting on the offensive. They will have to make out their case against the Proclamation. As the clause is at present drawn it is not the Government who will be compelled to come down to the House and justify the Proclamation. No; they have drawn their clause in this way—that it will rest with the opponents of the Proclamation who are impeaching it to set forth the grounds on which they wish it to be withdrawn. The parties who are attacking a Proclamation will have no clear issue raised to try in the House if this Amendment is not accepted. They will be forced to make their case against the Government, and the Government will give their reply; whereas if my Amendment were adopted it would raise an issue, and put some particular point in dispute; it would state that the Proclamation came within some one of the sub-heads of Clause 6; and that being the issue, the ground would be, to a certain extent, clear. A clear issue would be raised, and the question this House would have to decide would be set before us in a clear and intelligible fashion, and there would be much less difficulty in discussing the matter than will inevitably be the case if the clause is left as it at present stands. I very much regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland should not have considered this Amendment in a more favourable spirit. I will not say that I regard it as an Amendment of the first importance; but I think it is an Amendment of some importance, and I believe that it certainly merits a little more attention at the hands of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite than he has given to it.

In resisting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has used the expression at least four times—"so far as the terms in which it is drawn up go." I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would assent to these words—

"Provided that any such Proclamation shall declare under what sub-head, or sub-heads, the associations shall be proclaimed?"

The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to what I have said, or he would not have made that proposal. I stated that the grounds upon which the Proclamation is issued may be so wide as to include, to a certain extent, all the sub-heads. It would be impossible to accept the proposal of the hon. Member.

I have the clearest recollection of the Government's maintaining that every one of these sub-heads in Clause 6 is absolutely necessary. That A, B, and C are as distinct from D and E as possible, and that D and E are also distinct from one another; but now we hear that all these sub-heads are the same.

I did not say they were all distinct.

Then it was the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson). It is now said that they are all the same, and that it would be impossible to distinguish under which sub-heads an association should be proclaimed. If we had been able in the discussion upon Sub-heads D and E to prophesy the Government's attitude on the question now raised, I do not think that even the Liberal Unionists would have been backward in calling the attention of the Government to the points now put before us. The policy of the Government in resisting this Amendment is as plain as a pikestaff. When a Proclamation comes to be placed before the House the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will get up and, in a pompous manner, declare that for reasons of State policy, and in the interests of the preservation of law and order in Ireland, it would be impossible to state the reasons why an association had been proclaimed. He will lead us to believe that be holds in his hand a perfect cloud of proofs in support of the issue of the Proclamation, but that, for reasons of State policy, it is not expedient to place them before the House. He will allude loftily to the fact that the Government have had the benefit of the knowledge and experience of the Privy Council—that most distinguished and honourable Body—and he will say that it is impossible to give any reason, and that if the House does not swallow the proposal body and bones the Government will resign. What would his position be if he had to give the precise subhead under which he was acting? Why, he would have to prove that, under that sub-head, he had reason to believe the association proclaimed was dangerous. Of course, that would be a very difficult thing to do. I presume the Government cannot trust the intelligence of the common officials in Dublin Castle to distinguish very clearly between the different sub-heads, or follow the distinction in principle which was laid down by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. But there is another great reason why we object to this clause, and it is this. If they attack the National League on the ground of Boycotting, and say—"We declare this to be a dangerous association, because Boycotting is going on," and shortly afterwards it ceased, we should be able to come down and say—"This League has been proclaimed for a specific purpose; the purpose for which it was proclaimed no longer exists; the ground of complaint has ceased; and we now ask you to recall the Proclamation." But, as a matter of fact, the Government in this matter want the freeest hand, and they object to everything that would render the Code under which they are about to act anything like a fixed and certain one. Probably it is altogether idle for me to appeal to the Government when I see on the Front Opposition Bench the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), who has come down for the purpose of seeing that the work is done effectually; but, at the same time, I would urge them to give this Amendment their favourable consideration.

There was one remark made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland with which I am disposed to concur. He stated that, no matter who introduced a Bill of this sort, they could not accept such an Amendment as this. That is so, and the reason is because the object of the Government is to get an unlimited power for suppressing anything to which they object, and naturally they oppose everything that would restrain them in the exercise of this power. The right hon. and learned Gentleman states that the information we ask for in this Amendment will naturally be given in the course of debate on those Proclamations in this House. But there is no guarantee that such information will be given in the course of debate in this House. I imagine that the great object of the Bill is to put down the National League, and the Government may have no particularly distinct evidence to put before the British public to satisfy them that a particular branch of the League should be suppressed; but after they have suppressed it by a Proclamation, which does not state the ground of the suppression, crime may break out as a natural consequence of that suppression, and then the Government will be able to vamp up their case when they come down here in order to explain their conduct to Parliament. That is what would happen; and, that being the view of the Government, I, for one, am not surprised that they object to any Amendment which would prevent them from vamping up a case in this manner. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says he cannot, accept the Amendment, because some members of an association may adopt one sort of criminal means to carry out their object, and others may adopt another sort of criminal means. But what is the objection to stating in the Proclamation all the reasons which the Government have? They can state in the case of any particular association whether or not the members adopt the five reasons set forth in this section. There is nothing to prevent them from giving the whole five reasons, if necessary. But it would not be convenient or safe, perhaps, for them to do that. They would be showing their cards beforehand; and that would never suit a Conservative Government, supported by Liberal Unionists. There is, Sir, a precedent for the Amendment we propose. In Mr. Forster's Act—the Protection of Person and Property Act, 1881—it was provided that every warrant authorizing the arrest of a person should state the character of the crime for which that person was arrested, and Mr. Forster's warrant did state the character of the crime for which the persons imprisoned were arrested; and, as it turned out, that gave him the widest possible scope in the matter. Persons were accused of such vague offences as "treasonable practices," which nobody ever attempted to define, which no one has ever yet been able to define, and which no one will ever be in the position to define, in this House or out of it. All we ask is that this small limitation—namely, the character of the criminal acts that the association is believed to be carrying on—should be, in like manner, set forth in the Proclamation. I do not think anyone can assert that that is not a reasonable Amendment. We shall hear, I suppose, presently about the unreasonable character of this request. But the Amendment is one to which no one can object, if they desire to see the Act honestly carried out. If the Government were to carry out this Act honestly, no doubt they would be put to very considerable inconvenience; and I express my own opinion when I say that I believe they intend to use this Act dishonestly, and that that is the reason why they refuse the Amendment.

I desire to add a few words to the reasons which have already been given in support of the acceptance of this Amendment. I am not concerned by the form in which this Amendment has been proposed. It is a matter of indifference to me whether it is in one form or another; but I say that some such Amendment or some such clause ought to be provided to compel the Government to state their reasons why a particular district has been proclaimed. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) that in the Act of 1881 the grounds on which individual persons were arrested should appear on the foot of those warrants, and also the charge that was made against those people. Now, there was one very elastic charge occasionally to be found in the warrants, and that was the charge of "treasonable practices." I hope the Committee will pardon me if I again refer to my personal experience of one of those warrants. At that time I happened to be prosecuted under one of those warrants, and the warrant bore on the face of it that I was guilty of "treasonable practices." Now, what the "treasonable practices" of which I was said to be guilty were, although six years have passed over since that time, I have never been able to discover. My hon. Friends in this House, at the period of which I am speaking, questioned the Chief Secretary on the point, and they asked him what were the "treasonable practices" of which I had been guilty. But, Sir, I had the misfortune to be arrested in company with another individual, who also was charged with "treasonable practices;" and when Mr. Forster was asked upon what grounds I was arrested, he usually read the speech of the other man, and said—"And the other speech was just like it." He never read my speech, though he was repeatedly asked to do so. In my speech occurred a statement of the course of conduct that I had laid down for myself on that occasion; and that would not have justified my arrest, therefore the late Mr. Forster fell back on the speech of the other man. Now, I hold that if it be necessary to state distinctly and fully the charges made against an individual, it is still more necessary to state distinctly and fully what are the reasons why a special district or organization has been proclaimed. I can quite conceive many instances and many cases in which the administrators of the law might consider it desirable to suppress a particular branch of the National League. There is no use beating about the bush, as was aptly stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) just now. This Act is to be put in force against the National League—against a political and national organization—and its operations will be directed by a political personage—namely, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Well, we should leave no loop-hole of escape in this matter, and should use every effort in our power, by argument and opposition, to compel the Lord Lieutenant to state what reasons he has for attempting to suppress a political organization. The people of Ireland look forward to that political organization of which I speak for the ventilation of their views. Their friends look forward to this organization for the preservation of law and order, and for that reason they are bound to make every effort they possibly can to save it from extinction in their country. I believe this Amendment to have been wisely conceived and framed, and I believe no effort should be thrown away by which we could possibly convince the Government as to the propriety of its acceptance. But it is vain to hope that the Government will accept any Amendment from this side of the House below the Gangway. They only accept Amendments moved by Liberal Unionists, so far as this side of the House is concerned. Never since the 1st clause was passed have the Government accepted one line of Amendment proposed from this quarter of the House. I cannot conceive what their reason is. They accepted Amendments to the 1st clause. They showed that they had open minds then; but since that time they seem to have closed their minds completely to the acceptance of any clause, or any line, or any word, or any syllable that will go to the amendment of the Act from this quarter of the House. I have to repeat my statement, founded on experience. I cannot state the fact from a legal point of view of this Amendment; but I speak in the language of experience when I say that there is scarcely a line, a word, or a syllable of any Crimes Act that I have not had experience of; and I say that this Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is absolutely required in Ireland in order to protect legitimate organizations, and therefore I hope the Committee will accept it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 171; Noes 247: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 242.) [4.30 P.M.]

Mr. Courtney, I now beg to propose—

I rise to Order. I wish to ask your opinion, Mr. Courtney, upon a case which has just occurred. I want to know whether if the doors of the Division Lobby have been locked—

Order, order! The Tellers in the last Division have retired, and no question has been raised. It is too late to raise a question now.

I beg to propose to add, at the end of line 17, the words "or seven days after the date of the same." Now, anyone reading this clause will see that what may be done is this. The Lord Lieutenant may publish a Proclamation under Clause 6, and may, an hour afterwards, if he chooses, publish an Order not called a Proclamation under Clause 7, and he may, immediately upon issuing this Proclamation or Order under Clause 7, through his Resident Magistrates, in any given district to which the Proclamation or Order applies, proceed summarily to convict every member of the proclaimed association. Within two days—because we know that the summonses under summary jurisdiction may be returnable in two days, or in a shorter time if so prescribed—he may, within 24 hours, have 500 people in gaol for having done some act in contravention of the order made under Clause 7. Now, if the House of Commons is sitting, the Proclamation, under the 6th clause, will be laid upon the Table; but suppose the House is sitting he is not bound to lay it on the Table before seven days; if the House is not sitting he is not bound to convene the House before 14 days, so he may have sentences of imprisonment imposed on any given number of people at his own free will and discretion. Fourteen days—it may be 21 days before this House will have an opportunity of considering whether the Proclamation is proper or not. Supposing, what is not very likely to take place while the present Government is in Office, that when a Proclamation is laid before the House under which 500 persons have been imprisoned the House chooses to cancel it, there is no provision whatever anywhere in the Act, and nothing except Her Majesty's gracious pardon, to release from imprisonment the 500 persons incarcerated. Here you have an ex post facto trial which does no good at all; you have Cromwell's justice—namely, hanging people first and trying them afterwards. Now, this is a simple statement of what may take place under the Act. I do not think it requires any argument whatever to show cause why I ask that a slight check should be placed upon the possibility of such a thing taking place.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 17, insert "or seven days after the date of the same."—( Dr. Commins. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

This is an Amendment which the Government certainly cannot accept. That the Lord Lieutenant can be so inspired with foresight or prophecy as to know exactly that in seven days — neither more nor less — that an association will become dangerous seems impossible. I gather from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that there should be a certain period between the issuing of the Order and the time the Order is acted upon. We contend that the Proclamation ought not to be issued until such time as the Lord Lieutenant is in a position to declare an association is dangerous, and that when he is in a position to make such a declaration steps should be immediately taken to suppress the association. The hon. Gentleman has said that it might be possible to arrest members of an association who never knew that the association had been proclaimed. I can readily say that there is not the smallest danger that any persons will be proceeded against under this section unless it is clear to them that the Proclamation and Order have been issued. I am sure Members of the Committee will believe that no magistrate would be so foolish, and so absurd, as to make such a misuse of the Act as the hon. Gentleman seems to think possible.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) is not usually sarcastic, and I would recommend him to be sure of his facts before he attempts any further witticisms such as he had treated us to. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be surprised to hear that the very absurdity he has himself pointed out might have arisen if the words of his own clause, as originally framed, had been adopted. What did it provide? It provided that the Lord Lieutenant might from time to time, by Proclamation, declare that the provisions of the Act relating to dangerous associations should come into force as from the date of such Proclamation, or any later date specified. Does that imply the prophecy at which the right hon. and learned Gentleman sneered? If the circumstances were conceivable under which the Lord Lieutenant might lay it down in a Proclamation that an association should not be dangerous for a week, or for a fortnight, or for a month after the date at which it was issued, what, then, is the absurdity in our making a general provision that no Proclamation shall come into force for a week after it has been issued? I really ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend (Dr. Commins). He says that no magistrate will ever act under these clauses unless he is satisfied that an association is illegal. A magistrate would have no option, Sir, once the Lord Lieutenant issued his Proclamation. No magistrate will have any alternative but to convict if the prosecution is instituted under Section 7, and, that being so, the case my hon. Friend has made is an unanswerable case. It is quite conceivable that under a particular Proclamation many men may be cast in gaol by the magistrate, and that a week, or a fortnight, or a month after being sentenced to six months' imprisonment, Parliament might declare that the whole Proclamation was null and void. And, even if Parliament did so declare, there is no provision in the Bill enabling a person so wrongfully sentenced to be released. I find it impossible to follow the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. He has not attempted to deal with the case put by my hon. Friend; he has not attempted to show how the injustice pointed out cannot arise; and, therefore, I ask him to give us some further information in the matter.

The section deals, in the first place, with the enlightenment of the Lord Lieutenant as to the existence of dangerous associations. Before anything whatever is done he is supposed to be satisfied in his own mind that an association is of the quality mentioned in one or other of the sub-sections. And then the section provides that he shall call in the Privy Council to decide whether or not he shall issue the Proclamation. Surely, if this House considers it necessary that the Proclamation shall be discussed by the Privy Council that the Proclamation must be brought before the supreme intelligence of the members of the Irish Privy Council, is it not of importance that the parties concerned shall have notice before the Proclamation is brought into operation by the bludgeons of the police? The Lord Lieutenant alone is to be satisfied in his own mind as to the quality of the association; but before he can do an Executive act he must bring in his Council to consult with him. Surely it is a reasonable thing, and appeals to any common sense that is left on the Treasury Bench, that notice of a Proclamation ought not to be given to the Privy Councillors, but to the parties upon whom the section is to operate. The Order is to be issued under the 7th clause, and no time is provided for a notice of that Order to be given. I can conceive such a case as my hon. Friend the Member for South Roscommon (Dr. Commins) has mentioned arising. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland asks us not to believe that absurdities will occur under this Coercion Act. Now, Proclamations and the action of the police under the Proclamations are most extraordinary. I do not know whether the Lord Mayor of Dublin is present; but he has published a very remarkable and a very witty poem on a case which occurred in Belfast, in which, under the Proclamation forbidding the carrying of arms, a poor Italian who had instructed a monkey to shoot a little gun was, with the monkey, accused of carrying arms in a proclaimed district. When you enact those absurd provisions there is no knowing in what way they will be worked, and in what way men's minds will be affected by them. There has not been the slightest reason shown for the opposition to this Amendment.

I am surprised the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has not attempted to answer a single one of the arguments. He has not shown that what I asserted is not possible under this section if it be left unamended. He says—"Oh, that is not likely to happen. It is very unlikely it could happen." We have it on authority that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself will respect that what is most unexpected does happen. Well, now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman tries to be jocose by speaking of Proclamations as prophetic. I suppose that is a joke that passed the round of the framers of this Bill when they were bringing in the Whiteboy Sections. Does he forget that the Whiteboy Acts contain precisely the same provisions he now jokes at? I certainly advise him to keep his jokes for the next meeting of the framers of the Coercion Act, and to try and apply his mind to answer arguments that are used here against the Bill. The thing is too serious for us to joke at. We are told that none of the things we fear can happen in consequence of the good intentions of himself and Colleagues. We utterly distrust the good intentions of the Government. If we are to judge their intentions from their acts we have every reason to distrust their good intentions. What was done in regard to the Italian and the monkey at Belfast shows to what absurdity the Government are likely to go. Can it be denied that what I have alleged is possible—namely, that hundreds of people may be arrested without the slightest notice having been given to them? Will people be arrested and sent to prison for six months without any notice of the proclamation of the association to which they may belong having been given? And if they are sent to prison, and this House declares the Proclamation to be illegal, where is the provision in the Act to bring about their release?

It is quite evident that the Government are desirous to trap the people by not giving them warning of the Proclamation. They want that the Proclamation shall come into force from the day the Lord Lieutenant publishes it. Is it not rational to suggest that the Proclamation should come into force on the day on which it is reasonable to presume the people who are concerned in it have become acquainted with its existence. I have had experience of Proclamations. I have known public meetings announced to be held in Ireland on a Sunday and the Lord Lieutenant to deliberately reserve his proclamations of those meetings until the Sunday morning. Why will not the Government in this case arrange that some number of days should elapse, during which the people may have an opportunity of knowing what the Lord Lieutenant has done. This is the principle of the ordinary law. You cannot kick a man out of a field for trespass. You must warn him first, and pursue him afterwards. Why will not the Government pursue the ordinary courses of justice? Because I suppose they are not a parental Government, but a Government acting against the will of the people.

Question put, and negatived.

I beg to move to add to the words last inserted the words—"No such Proclamation shall continue in force for any greater period than one year." I have no doubt two objections will be raised to this Amendment. It will be said, in the first place, that this clause proposes to deal with criminal associations, and that it is an unreasonable thing that we should have to renew Proclamations year after year; and the second argument which may be used is, that already the Committee have refused to limit ordinary Proclamations to six months, or to any period whatever. Now, in dealing with the second argument first, I desire to point out what distinction there is between an ordinary Proclamation under this Bill and a special Proclamation. The distinction is this—that ordinary Proclamations are used for the purpose of bringing into being certain institutions which have a quasi -judicial character, although, to a large extent, they are shams. To the second objection to the Amendment, that nothing is too hot or strong for criminal associations, there are several answers. The first and most obvious is, that if nothing is too hot or strong for criminal associations, why do you not make it part of the ordinary law of the land? Already the powers which the Judges have to declare any combination to be a criminal conspiracy are so large that, without presuming to discuss them now, it is perfectly obvious that no extended power is necessary to induce Judges to declare this, that, or the other to be illegal conspiracies. In addition to that, already the Committee has strengthened the law of the land in the most extraordinary manner. The Common Law ought to be sufficient to deal with any of these offences; but now the Government have power to have special juries; they have power to change the venue; they have power to take a case to County Antrim, where any 12 men you pick up on the road side would hang a Nationalist, whether they had evidence against him or not. In addition to that, the Government had the power of selecting from the special jury panels any 12 men whom they thought most certain to come to a verdict without deliberation or without evidence. All these powers enable the Government to deal perfectly with criminal associations; and I must also point out that, by the exercise of these patent methods for procuring convictions, they will be able to sentence prisoners to long periods of imprisonment. The imprisonment will be limited to six months, so that I am entitled to assume that the associations against which Sections 6 and 7 of this Bill are levied will not be really criminal associations, but those associations which it is desired for political purposes to put down. If these associations are not associations the membership for which should be punishable by any greater period than six months' imprisoment, is it reasonable to say they are not of such permanently bad character that a Proclamation in respect of them should have any greater run than one year? I do not think it is, and the object of my Amendment is, since the Government by their own Bill have declared they are not really criminal associations, that there should be at least once in 12 months the duty cast upon the Lord Lieutenant of satisfying his mind that that criminality does exist. Take, again, the illustration which the Chief Secretary put into my mouth. I recollect that on the second reading he talked about proclaiming certain branches of the League for Boycotting. That is not an offence which is perpetual. You may have a considerable amount of Boycotting at one part of the year and find that at another part it entirely disappears. In that case it is unreasonable a Proclamation should continue for longer than a year. If you look at Clause 6, you find that it is only within 14 days that any proceedings can be taken by Parliament against a Proclamation. After 14 days have expired a Proclamation passes out of the control of the House of Commons, and, so far as this Bill is concerned, there is no effective method prescribed by which to raise a debate on the continuance of the Proclamation. Another argument which I have to advance in favour of my Amendment is one which really ought to commend itself to Her Majesty's Government. They have declared that this is a measure to deliver the people of Ireland from the tyranny under which they are groaning; they say that as soon as this measure gets to a certain stage they intend to bring in a Land Bill which will produce an Arcadian state of peace and prosperity in Ireland. If they have any belief in the truth of their own assertion, it is unnecessary a Proclamation should continue for more than a year. My last argument is, that this Bill gives the Lord Lieutenant most extraordinary powers of himself declaring an association to be criminal. A Court of Justice must under the 7th section of the Act, on proof of the Proclamation being published in The Dublin Gazette, convict a prisoner who has been a member of the association of taking part in a criminal association. That is a very excessive power to use, a power which ought not to be given except in the most extraordinary circumstances, and it is a power which should not be exercised for any greater period than one year without the controlling review of this House. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "no such Proclamation shall continue in force for any greater period than one year."—( Mr. Chance. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

There is no reason whatever for the acceptance of this Amendment. If an association is an illegal combination according to the grounds mentioned in the clause, there is no reason why the Lord Lieutenant should limit the duration of the Proclamation which destroys the illegal combination.

I am afraid I failed to make myself clear as to the distinction between this portion of the Act and the rest of the section. I deny altogether that a Proclamation ascertains or shows that an association is illegal. All the Proclamation ascertains or shows is that a certain association is, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant, a dangerous association. I desire to point out most clearly that the effect of a Proclamation is to withdraw from the purview of the ordinary Courts of Law all questions as to the legality or illegality of the particular association proclaimed. No lawyer who sits in this House will deny that questions of the legality and illegality of combinations or associations are amongst the most difficult questions known to the English law, and yet the Government seem to think that the Lord Lieutenant ought to be allowed to withdraw permanently from the review of the ordinary tribunals those most difficult questions.

The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) has not touched the point at all. He seems to be under the impression that a Proclamation should be continued for ever. He might just as well argue that because a man has taken an emetic he should go on taking emetics the whole of his life. I hope this Amendment will be adopted; it can do no harm in any way. Let some hope be held out to the people who may be subjected to those Proclamations that if their conduct is good the Proclamation will be withdrawn.

This is a very reasonable Amendment, and that is the very reason I think why it is rejected by the Government. My hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) who moved the Amendment took the wrong course, Mr. Courtney, when he put it in your hands. He ought first of all to have submitted it to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). No matter how reasonable an Amendment which is proposed from these Benches is, it is described as ridiculous and absurd, and instantly rejected. But let any Amendment be proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness, and no matter how absurd or trivial it is, it has all the virtues in the world, and is immediately accepted by the Government, which lives by the permission of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness. If I might argue the question, I would like to point out that there is a precedent for the provision which it is now proposed to insert in the Act of Mr. Forster of 1881. This is simply a provision which would compel the Executive to review their action from time to time, and it gave them a whole year to see the effect of the working of that Act. Now, Mr. Forster, in his Act of 1881, compelled himself, as it were, to review his conduct not only every year, but every three months. There was not a single warrant issued under the Act of 1881 that Mr. Forster was not compelled by his own Act to review the policy of every three months; circumstances might have arisen, and afterwards did arise, which did compel the Government of that day to see that it was inexpedient that warrants issued three months before should continue in force any longer; and in the same way we contend that circumstances may arise under this Act which would render it wholly inexpedient and wholly unjust to continue in force a Proclamation which might be just and expedient at the time it was made. The rejection of this Amendment by the Government casts a pretty strong light upon their expectations as to the result of this Bill. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) said, the other day, that this Act and the results flowing from it would be the best present Her Majesty could receive on her Jubilee Day. One might expect from that, that good results would, in the judgment of the Government, at once flow from this Act. But it appears that by refusing this Amendment, which would compel them to review their conduct every year, they do not expect these results from it at all, but, on the contrary, expect a continuance of crime and outrage. If they had any faith or belief in the efficacy of their nostrums they would adopt this Amendment. It is because they believe that this Act will enable them to do nothing else than to suppress political agitation and put down political opponents that they object to a reasonable Amendment like this.

I congratulate the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) upon the speedy manner in which he disposed of this Amendment. He has just delivered a speech which was as completely empty of anything in the shape of argument as if it had come from the Chief Secretary. We say there are several reasons why this Amendment should be accepted. We say, in the first place, it is a proper thing there should be some period fixed at which it would be incumbent upon the Executive in Dublin Castle to review their action under this Bill. We say that a Proclamation should not be eternal in its character. If this were a temporary Coercion Bill, of course no argument on this subject would lie in our mouths; but where we have a Coercion Bill which is supposed to be perpetual, then the only means of imposing a cheek is to secure that any action taken under it shall be from time to time reviewed by the Executive in Ireland. This is one reason why I think this Amendment should be adopted. A second reason is that, however dangerous and criminal an association is, it should not be forgotten that this is a Bill of exceptional methods and exceptional character, and that a time should come, be it sooner or later, at which any member of an association should have an opportunity of appealing from exceptional methods to the ordinary tribunals of the land. If the Government reviewed their Proclamation at the end of the year, it would be open to anyone to go to the ordinary Law Courts, and have it decided whether or not an association was illegal or not. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) argues that once it is ascertained that an association is an illegal association and comes under the category set forth in the head of this section, there is no reason why any limitation should be placed upon the duration of the Proclamation respecting it. I beg to differ from him on that point, and I think I can even quote a precedent on the subject which may not convince him, but which I think ought to. Assuming that an association is illegal, that association ought certainly to have an opportunity of divesting itself of anything in its methods or objects which is illegal, and of renewing itself, so that it may once more come within the pale of the Constitution, and be placed outside the description of a dangerous association. Let me ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite if they have forgotten the reply which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary gave the other day to a question proceeding from these Benches? His attention was called to a Resolution of this House relating to the Orange Society. The Committee is aware that so long ago as 1837 a Committee of this House thoroughly investigated the constitution of the Orange Body, and that they issued a most voluminous Report, in which they condemned that Body. They examined a large number of witnesses, and they came to the conclusion that the Orange Body was a Body of an illegal character. A Rule was therefore made—I do not know whether it was a Rule of this House or merely a Departmental Rule—which excluded from the Public Service of this country and of Ireland any person who belonged to the Orange Society. It was in reference to that Rule that a Question was asked of the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour). Hon. Members opposite were asked how they justified the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) to a position in the Government in face of that Rule, which practically made it illegal for anyone who belonged to the Orange Society to be appointed to any position in the Government or in the Public Service? Thereupon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made a reply quoting an answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and stating in effect that since the Committee of the House of Commons had come to that conclusion, the Orange Society had been renewed; that the original association which was in existence at the time that the Committee of the House had reported had been dissolved, that a new organization had been formed, and that everything of an illegal character had been cut away from it. We say, if it is a proper thing that the Orange Society should get an opportunity of divesting itself of anything of an illegal character which might attach to it, the very same opportunity might be given, say, to the National League in Ireland, even if the Lord Lieutenant should take it upon himself to suppress that association. Suppose that, immediately after the passing of this Act, the Lord. Lieutenant thinks fit to suppress the National League. The members of that organization might say—"Be it so; His Excellency has thought fit to suppress us. We will accept that decision of His Excellency, and we will, as long as his Proclamation is in force, abandon our organization. We will treat our Body as dissolved, and we will wait until the Proclamation expires." If a limit, say, of 12 months were put to the Proclamation, at the end of that time the members might come together and say—"We will re-form our organization, removing from it anything offensive, cutting off anything that is of an illegal character." I think that political organizations in Ireland should have a chance of this kind given to them; that an order of the Lord Lieutenant should not be taken to be final and irreversible; and that even though the Lord Lieutenant of the day did take that action with reference to organizations, and even though the House of Commons of the day sanctioned the Lord Lieutenant in his action when his conduct came to be discussed on an Address under the clauses of this section, even in the face of all these facts, all associations in Ireland, no matter what the state of politics may be, should have an opportunity of stripping themselves of anything of an illegal character, and of founding themselves upon a new and perfectly legal basis. I do not think any effective reply has been given to our arguments, and, that being so, I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) would be perfectly justified in going to a Division.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 138; Noes 230: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 243.) [5.35 P.M.]

It being after a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

House adjourned at one minute before Six o'clock.