I have to move, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 18, the omission of the words "for putting in force the enactments of this Act relating to dangerous associations."

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 18, to leave out from "for putting" to "associations," in line 19 inclusive.—( Mr. Finlay. )

Question, "That the words 'for putting in force the enactments of this Act relating to dangerous associations' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

I move, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 26, to omit the words "any such special proclamation shall be deemed to have expired." I desire to make the clause read thus—

"If within a period of fourteen days after the same has been laid before Parliament an address is presented to Her Majesty by either House of Parliament praying that such special proclamation shall not continue in force as to an association or associations named or described therein, such special proclamation shall be deemed to have expired so far as the same relates to such association or associations."

I think this is a reasonable proposal, if the House is to have any control in the matter.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 26, to leave out the words "any special proclamation shall be deemed to have expired."—( Mr. Chance. )

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

was understood to accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

I have now to move an Amendment in line 27.

Order, order! There are other Amendments on the Paper which come before that of the hon. Member.

The Amendment I propose to move in line 27 is to leave out "if" and insert "unless." This sub-section empowers Parliament to negative a Proclamation; but what I propose is to substitute an affirmative for a nega- tive action, and to provide that a Proclamation shall not be put in force unless both Houses of Parliament approve of it. The ground upon which I move the Amendment is that these special Proclamations have, I think, been hitherto unknown in the Constitution of this country. The power which the Bill will give to the Lord Lieutenant is so exceptional that too great care cannot be taken to prevent its abuse, by stipulating that before the people of Ireland are deprived of their Constitutional liberties, there ought to be a statutory authority for the step. In my humble judgment, this is the worst clause in the Bill, the most dangerous clause, and a clause which ought to be resisted to the very utmost. I ask that the Government, before putting the Proclamation in force, should receive the assent of both Houses of Parliament. If there should be any national danger, we have a right to assume that Parliament would at once confer even such exceptional powers upon the Government pro hac vice.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 27, to leave out "if" and insert "unless."—( Mr. Henry H. Fowler. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'if' stand part of the Clause."

It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, that there is no exact analogy, as far as I know, for the clause under discussion. Nevertheless, there are a good many arrangements which more or less present a resemblance to the course which this clause follows. For instance, there is that which applies when the Reserve Forces of the country are called out. The law requires that Parliament should come together when the Reserve Forces are embodied, but it does not compel a discussion of the policy of the course. Parliament may do so if it wishes, but it is not compelled to enter into a formal discussion and pass a formal Vote. In some cases, certain proposed Rules derive validity from the fact that they are laid upon the Table of the House for a certain time. No doubt, if Parliament should be summoned together to sanction a Proclamation under this clause, and if any large and responsible section of the House were to hold that the Pro- clamation was uncalled for, the Government would undoubtedly be bound to afford an opportunity for its full discussion, and it would then be the subject of a Vote in accordance with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. On the other hand, if it should be felt generally that the Proclamation was justifiable, why should Parliament be compelled to waste a night or two in the discussion of a matter about which both sides of the House were agreed? For these reasons I think it is not desirable for the Committee to accept the Amendment.

The defence which the right hon. Gentleman has made of this sub-section is somewhat extraordinary. He talks of the Reserve Forces. What on earth have the Reserve Forces to do with the matter? They are called out to defend the country in a time of peril, and, no doubt, Her Majesty cannot call them out without a Proclamation; but in that case Parliament is summoned to meet. Here is a case in which there is no such machinery for giving us an opportunity of discussing the matter, or of taking a Vote of the House in approval or condemnation of the action of the Government. It is not a question, although the Chief Secretary has put it in that way, that Parliament should be compelled to discuss the Proclamation, but that Ministers should be compelled to make a Motion for approving it. We do not propose to enact that Parliament should be compelled to discuss the Proclamation, and the right hon. Gentleman, if he thinks so, must have an extraordinary idea of the use of language. What we desire is, that if this Proclamation is to be issued at all, Her Majesty's Ministers shall be obliged, themselves, to make a Motion asking for the assent of Parliament, and if they do not do so, then the Proclamation shall have no force and effect. That is a very different thing from laying the Proclamation on the Table of the House and saying that it shall be law, unless Parliament annuls it. Let me give an instance. Certain Rules relating to the Judicature Act were laid upon the Table of this House, and Sir Hardinge Giffard, the present Lord Chancellor, was anxious that they should be discussed, and he was supported by a numerous body of Members; but it was not until the Egyptian Question was raised, on a Saturday, that he was able to get a day for the discussion. If there had not been a Saturday Sitting there would have been no opportunity for discussion at all, and it would have been in the power of the Ministry to have changed the whole Rules of the judicial system of this country without affording an opportunity for considering them. If we are to have any protection from Parliament at all, it is not too much to ask that the Ministry shall be compelled to give some grounds in this House for their action. It is not a case of compelling Parliament, but of compelling Her Majesty's Ministers, to give grounds for the faith that is in them, and their reasons for asking Parliament to support them, rather than give a blind adhesion to everything they may choose to do. It is simply placing an additional check upon the action of Ministers before they suppress the right of association and combination. The levity with which the Chief Secretary for Ireland has dismissed the Amendment is in keeping with his usual practice. He seems to treat the whole Irish people as an entomologist would treat lepidoptera or rotifera. He treats us like cockroaches and not as human beings of flesh and blood. We protest against being treated as Hottentots. His view of the situation is not ours, and we say that if you are to suppress the right of association and combination, you shall ask for the formal permission of Parliament, without leaving us to ballot for a day. What is a responsible section of the House? Are 86 Members a responsible section? Was it a responsible section which last night brought forward a Motion in reference to the bludgeoning of a large number of persons in the County of Clare, because the argument used against it was that it was an interference with the discussion of a more important measure? If the right of association is to be destroyed by this unparalleled measure, the least you can do is to ask Parliament to approve of your own disgraceful conduct.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has alluded to the calling out of the Reserve Forces. As I was responsible for the carrying of the Reserve Forces Act through Parliament, I should like to re- mind the right hon. Gentleman that a Proclamation under that Act can only be issued in a case of imminent national danger, or great emergency. What we were thinking of when that Act passed was invasion, or the danger of invasion. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there is the slightest analogy between that case and a case like this?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out the distinction between a Proclamation under the Act for calling out the Reserves and a Proclamation under this measure. Of course, I admit that the cases are different. All I said was that they were analogous in one particular, and that particular was one which was material to my argument. Nor has the right hon. and learned Gentleman shaken my contention.

The right hon. Gentleman has given as an analogy the action of Parliament when the Reserve Forces are called out. But perhaps he will allow me to say that when Her Majesty calls out the Reserve Forces, the procedure does not end with the publication of the Proclamation and the meeting of Parliament. Not only has the Proclamation to be made, but Parliament has to vote the number of men who are to be called out, and also the amount of money to be expended. That is settled by statute and custom long antecedent to the Act of 1882, and it is necessary, on every occasion when an addition is made to the Army, to take a distinct Vote of Parliament. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat rash in referring to the calling out of the Reserve Forces as analogous to a Proclamation under this measure by the Lord Lieutenant. The analogy is all the other way, as a Vote of Parliament is absolutely necessary. It was my duty, in 1882, to ask for a distinct Vote of Parliament when a proposal was made to call out the Reserve Forces. It has been the duty of other Ministers to take a similar course; and whenever the Reserve Forces are proposed to be called out again, Parliament will have a full opportunity of discussing the matter. Therefore, the Committee will see that the parallel or analogy drawn by the right hon. Gentleman is altogether illusory.

This is a discussion which simply relates to the machinery of the Bill. As Parliament must be called together when a Proclamation is issued, hon. Members in any portion of the House will be able to challenge the action, of the Executive. It would be useless for the Government to submit a formal Resolution themselves, when no one desires to challenge their action.

What is asked is that the matter should of necessity be discussed.

It may be discussed at the instance of the House; and I think it would be as well to follow the analogy of the action of Parliament in every instance in which the issue of a Proclamation is raised. I could mention 20 or 30 instances in which the course proposed in this clause is adopted. The Proclamations or Orders in Council are laid on the Table of the House, and, if the House thinks fit, they can be discussed. I would strongly press upon the Committee the propriety of not deviating from the machinery already provided by Parliament in other cases.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said that when Parliament is called together, if it should be the opinion of any large or responsible section of the House that the matter was one that ought to be discussed, it would then be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to afford opportunities for its discussion. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect is directly contradictory to that of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, because the Attorney General for Ireland has just told us that it would be in the power of anybody to discuss it. That is not so, and if the Attorney General for Ireland is right in theory, the Government will still possess the power of closing any discussion whatever.

What I said was that it would be in the power, even of a portion of the House, to raise a discussion.

Very well; I will take it in that way; but a Member is a portion of the House, and it would be in the power of any Member to procure a discussion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a totally different condition—and certainly the more rational condition—which was originally put forward by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because the right hon. Gentleman recognized that, in point of fact, it does not at all follow that it will be in the power of a private Member, or even of a dozen private Members of the House, to obtain a right, on any particular day, to discuss a matter of this kind. The Chief Secretary says that the Government ought to grant a discussion if it was desired by any large or responsible section of the House. What does he mean by the words "any large or responsible section of the House?" The most responsible section of the House, so far as the guardians of Irish liberty are concerned, are the Irish Members themselves. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that if the Irish Members, or a large number of them, desire a discussion, that will be a sufficient ground for making it the duty of the Government to cause a Proclamation of this kind to be discussed? Did he use the words "responsible section of the House" for the purpose of including the Irish Members or for the purpose of excluding them, or did he mean to refer only to the regular Opposition? Is it to be understood—I do not mean to say the mere demand of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would make it the duty of the Government to discuss a question of this kind—but is it to be understood that it will be in the power of the Irish Members, acting together as a body, to secure a discussion? I hold that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was acting strictly in the discharge of his duty in the demand he has made, and the attempts which have been made to meet the case by the Government have totally and absolutely failed. In the first place, the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says that he knows of 20 or 30 analogous cases in which the Proclamation is laid on the Table, but without the necessity of discussing them, and, when pressed, he instanced as one the Prison Pules, which is, no doubt, the best case he could give. But does he know of any case where, in consequence of an alteration of the Prison Rules, Parliament has been called together? That would be the only analogy worth meeting. I judge, from the silence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that he knows of no instance whatever in which, on account of a change of Prison Rules, Parliament has been called together, and, therefore, his 20 or 30 cases have nothing whatever to do with the matter. Then what becomes of the analogy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? It has recoiled on his own head. It has been proved, in the first place, to be directly the reverse of what he stated to be the case—namely, that in respect of the calling out of the Reserves by her Majesty, there must be a Vote of Parliament and, consequently, there must be the approval of Parliament. When the right hon. Gentleman said that the two cases were perfectly analogous he was altogether mistaken, because, so far as analogy is concerned in the case he quoted—the calling out of the Reserves—Parliament is required to be called together. In making an effective addition to the Army, there are certain forms prescribed by Parliament which must be observed, and, so far as the analogy is concerned, it is completely the other way, and the precedent quoted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland goes directly against him. In the case of the calling out of the Reserves there cannot be the smallest suspicion attaching to the act of the Executive Government, and yet, in that case, the Legislature has thought it wise to require Parliament to be called together and the approval of Parliament to be expressed. Surely, if that is so, it ought to be much more necessary in a case of this kind; because, in this instance, you are placing into the hands of a political officer—the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—the power of issuing a Proclamation which will set aside the ordinary rights of Her Majesty's subjects. The undoubted right of every Irishman to be tried by a regular Court of Justice is abrogated, and you substitute for it the sole authority of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant, in point of fact, is to constitute the crime, and on that being done, he is not only not to allow any interference on the part of the Court, but he is to inflict the punishment for the crime himself. Now, surely, that is a strong case, and a very much stronger case than the calling out of the Reserves, for requiring Parliament to be called together and its approval taken. Therefore, if in the case of calling out the Reserves the action of Parliament is to be invoked, the analogy in this case is irresistible, and the argument cannot be justified for a moment that in this instance Parliament is not to discuss the action of the Lord Lieutenant. If we are to have any regard at all for the Constitution—and that, I am bound to say, is a matter which is becoming more and more a matter of doubt in my mind—if we are still to have anything like the semblance of respect for our traditions, and for those objects which have been dearest to the hearts of all generations of Englishmen heretofore, then the case is as clear and as strong as it could possibly be that the Government should accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend, especially when, as the Attorney General for Ireland says, it is, after all, a mere question of machinery. Being a question of machinery, I trust that the Government will make no difficulty in adjusting it according to the principles of the Constitution.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has pressed me to give an exact definition of what I meant by a responsible section of the House. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman does not expect that I should give him an exact and precise and numerical definition on a matter such as this. I think it would be sufficient to satisfy the Committee that there was a demand made on the Government of sufficient importance to justify its being complied with. On such a matter as this, I take it that if the House were called together in consequence of a Proclamation dealing with the affairs of Ireland, and with purely Irish subjects, it would be the duty of the Government to afford facilities for discussion, if it were asked for by the Irish Members, or by any considerable section of the Irish Members. I cannot conceive that any person occupying a responsible position in this House would shrink from a discussion of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to attack me for the analogy I drew between this case and the calling out of the Reserves. Now, I guarded myself by saying that there was not an exact analogy between a Proclamation under this Bill and the Act of 1882 which relates to the Reserve Forces of Her Majesty. As far as I understood the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), he led the Committee to suppose that there is something in the Act of 1882 which requires the House to discuss a Proclamation issued under it.

What I said was that Her Majesty's Government cannot add to the Army without a Vote of Parliament; and the same course must be taken in regard to the calling out of the Reserves, as calling them out creates an increase of the Army.

Now, I think, Sir, there is a considerable analogy between this case and that of calling out the Reserves.

No.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that, although there is nothing in the Statute to compel a Parliamentary discussion, yet, as a matter of fact, this House is called upon to vote the money, and, having that duty to perform, the fact of calling out the Reserves must lead, absolutely, to a discussion in Parliament.

The operation of the Statute must necessarily involve a Vote of money, and, under such circumstances, it would have been absurd to use language as to that Vote in the Statute which already was fully provided for.

In the case of the Reserves the men would be already under arms. The Proclamation would take effect directly it was issued, and if Parliament did not happen to be sitting at the time, it would be necessary to summon Parliament together; but, during the interval between the issue of the Proclamation and the summoning together of Parliament, the Proclamation would have full force. There is no doubt that under this clause, when a Proclamation is issued, Parliament would feel it desirable that such a Proclamation should be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian proceeded to say that this clause enables the Lord Lieutenant to create a new offence by Proclamation, and he stated that if you enable the Lord Lieutenant, who is, in fact, the Executive of the country, to create an offence, it would be perfectly monstrous if Parliament were not called together in order to deliver an explicit opinion upon the matter—that Parliament, in fact, should pronounce a judgment as to whether the exercise of power on the part of the Lord Lieutenant was justifiable or not. Now, the Lord Lieutenant has power, under the provisions of this Bill, to proclaim unlawful assemblies and dangerous associations.

There is no provision in this Bill for calling Parliament together.

That is exactly what I say; but, under the Act of 1882, the right hon. Gentleman gave the Lord Lieutenant the power of similarly creating what he styles a new offence, and the right hon. Gentleman did not even provide the safeguard of Parliament being called together and the Proclamation being laid on the Table of the House. Therefore, although it may be true that Her Majesty's Government are not going as far as the right hon. Gentleman now thinks they ought to go, it is impossible not to see that we are going much further in the way of securing that Parliament should have control in the matter than was done five years ago, and if the right hon. Gentleman will condescend to look at the 10th section of the Act of 1882, he will see that there is no provision to compel the Government whenever the Lord Lieutenant issues a Proclamation to take the opinion of Parliament upon it.

The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman have only made the matter worse. He has told the Committee that the Lord Lieutenant has power to create offences under the Act of 1882. Now, have not the Magistrates the power of creating offences when they read the Riot Act? Where the Lord Lieutenant, acting on the part of the Crown, does certain acts under the Statute, he is simply doing what is strictly analogous to the ordinary duty of the Executive Authorities, when they apply the provisions of the law in a definite case, and it becomes an offence to go against their orders. What has this to do with the case now before the Committee, when the Government are, for the first time, placing the judgment of the Lord Lieutenant, a political officer, in the place of the fundamental principle of the liberty of the subject, in the circumstances in which I, myself, and those who acted with me were compelled—very reluctantly, by the gravity of the case—to provide that Parliament should be called together. You refuse to do that, and you refer us to the Reserves Act although, that Act provides that Parliament should be made a party to every Proclamation issued under it. You refuse to call Parliament together to share your responsibility. On this side of the House we say that that is the only security for the right exercise of that responsibility, although the Reserves Act to which you appeal did the very thing, and required the combination of Parliament with the Executive in order to render the transaction complete.

Nothing can be more entirely fallacious than the reference of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Act of 1882, relating to an illegal meeting. That Act contained a clause giving the Lord Lieutenant power to prohibit meetings which he had reason to consider might be dangerous to the public peace; but that is a power, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has just stated, which belongs to the magistrates under the Riot Act, and the analogy which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has attempted to draw, by which a particular act is declared an offence, is altogether fallacious, and entirely unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman.

I cannot understand the strong objection of the Chief Secretary to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. He seems to contemplate that Parliament should be called together for the purpose of considering a Proclamation which may be issued when Parliament is not sitting, and if Parliament is already sitting, that the Proclamation must be laid before it; but he seems to contemplate further that no discussion may take place on that Proclamation, although, at the same time, he said that a discussion would probably take place if any responsible or large section of the House of Commons demanded one. It is all very well to be assured that the Government would recognize a large body of Irish Members as the responsible section of the House of Commons. I have never stated in this House that I would not accept any statement by the right hon. Gentleman on his own responsibility; but it must not be forgotten that the Irish Chief Secretary is changed nearly every month now-a-days, and the right hon. Gentleman may be occupying a much happier position than he now occupies by next Christmas. In that case, what security should we have that the Successor of the right hon. Gentleman would necessarily feel himself bound by any declaration made by the present Chief Secretary. From my own experience I decline to accept any declaration of this kind as any safeguard. What are the facts? We have, on repeated occasions, appealed for days to discuss important Irish questions; but we never yet succeeded in getting a day, except the solitary instance of the day that was granted by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) to discuss the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). That is the only occasion, within my memory, that the Irish Party ever succeeded in getting a day for the discussion of a question in this House, no matter how important it might have been. No doubt we have sometimes succeeded in wresting a day from the Government, and devoting it to our own purposes; but we owe no thanks to the Government for that. It must also be remembered that even the opportunities for discussion given to the Irish Members by the Rules of the House are being taken away from them, and that there is in existence at this very moment a set of new Rules in order to prevent hon. Members below the Gangway from getting any day at all for the discussion of Irish Business. Then I beg to repeat that no declaration of this kind made by the Irish Secretary is any security whatever that the rights of the Irish Members will be safeguarded. When the time arrives for the issuing of a Proclamation, we shall probably be informed that a discussion of the Proclamation itself would interrupt the consideration of more serious Business of the House. In discussing an Amendment like this at the present moment, we are placed in an extremely difficult and awkward position; because, in order to point out the enormous importance of a Proclamation issued under the 6th section of the Bill and the truly unprecedented character of the Proclamation, I am obliged, reluctantly, to refer to certain Amendments which have been placed on the Paper, and which, I regret to say, we shall have no oprortunity of discussing, or even of dividing upon. The other day the Government accepted an Amendement of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), which undoubtedly modified to some extent the atrocious character of the 6th and 7th clauses. But the Chief Secretary has now, on the part of the Government, placed a further Amendment on the Paper which is calculated entirely to destroy the effect of the Amendments of the hon. and learned Member, and to restore to its original atrocity the character of these clauses. Now, I beg to say that the proceedings of the Government in this matter are of an extremely objectionable character, to use a very mild expression; but what can we do during the short space of time meted out to us for the discussion of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Finlay) passed Amendments which materially modified the barbarous character of those two clauses; but now the Government have placed this further Amendment on the Paper, which we can have no power of discussing, or dividing upon at any rate, what power we may have nobody can at present tell. Nobody knows what is to happen after 10 o'clock to-night; but the proposal of the Chief Secretary altogether alters the Amendments already accepted. The Amendment of the Chief Secretary is in Clause 7, page 6, line 5, to leave out the words, "any association which he believes to be a dangerous association," in order to apply the clause to

"Any association named or described in such special Proclamation, or any association which appears to the Lord Lieutenant to be a dangerous association, and to have been, after the date of such special Proclamation, formed or first employed for any of the purposes of any association named or described in such special Proclamation."

What will the effect of this be? A Proclamation may be issued proclaiming some secret association in Kerry. Perhaps a discussion may be permitted upon it, or possibly there may be no discussion at all. However, if any discussion is taken, it will be on that Proclamation only. When the Proclamation shall have received the sanction of Parliament it will be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant, without coming to this House at all, to proclaim any other association which, in his opinion, after the date of the original Proclamation, has been guilty of any of the offences against which the original Proclamation was directed. In such case it will be possible to hang on links, one after another, in a chain for affiliating every association with the National League which may have been called into existence for Boycotting or other purposes. For instance, a Moonlighting association may be suppressed for Boycotting, and under this provision the Proclamation of such an association might bring every branch of the National League under the same Proclamation. Let me call attention to the enormous powers conferred on the Lord Lieutenant by this clause. As far as I am acquainted with the 86 Coercion Acts which have preceded this measure, these powers are far more tyrannical than any which have hitherto been sought to be placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. Although this is the 87th Act it contains powers which are entirely unprecedented; and, therefore, I say that it is a monstrous position for the Chief Secretary to take up, that he will deny to this House the security that the Proclamation, when it is made, will receive discussion in both Houses of Parliament, nor is there anything in what the Chief Secretary said, or any declaration he has made, that gives the slightest security to us that any discussion will take place on the subject, because it will be perfectly open, notwithstanding everything he has said, for his successor to get up and inform us that the Government are not bound to look on the Irish Members as a large and responsible section of the House, and consequently to decline altogether to allow any discussion on the matter. In order to point out the enormous importance of the question, let me refer for a moment to a letter which appeared in The Times of yesterday, and which was quoted in the course of the discussion which took place yesterday. I refer to a letter written by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, in which he states—

"We are undoubtedly on the eve of a struggle in Ireland with one of the most formidable revolutionary organizations in modern history."

This may seem to some hon. Members to be somewhat hyperbolical and exaggerated language; but either Mr. Clifford Lloyd knows Ireland, or he does not, and the chief point of his letter is this—that in using that language he expresses the conviction, determination, and unanimous opinion of those persons in Ireland with whom he sympathizes, and with whom he has worked before. They look upon this Act as directed against the National League and nothing else. That is the belief of these men, who, I believe, had a great deal to do with the hunting of the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) out of the Irish Office, and who are prepared to hunt the present Chief Secretary out of the Irish Office if he refuses to do their will. I maintain that this Bill has been drawn to crush the National League, and, therefore, I say it ought to be remembered when we are giving these powers to the Lord Lieutenant, what the real purposes are for which they are intended to be used, and for which they will be used, if this Bill is passed into law. I sincerely trust and hope, that the anticipations of Mr. Clifford Lloyd will not be realized. I trust and hope that even the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chief Secretary for Ireland will be wise enough to make it his business this summer to go over to Ireland, and learn for himself the principles and the character of the National League, before he plunges into a mad career of opposition to that organization. If it be proved that these clauses are intended to be used in an attempt to crush the organization of the National League in Ireland, I say, that it is a most fatuous and precipitous course to deny to Parliament, before entering upon a crusade, the gravity of which it is impossible for any man to calculate, the right of discussion. I appeal to the people of England to pause once more before they take this leap over the precipice, for I say with confidence engendered by a long and intimate acquaintance with the people of Ireland, that in all their history the English people have never passed any Act more calculated to bring upon them shame and long repentance than this measure. If you do pass these provisions you will find that after long years of struggle, misery, and suffering on the part of the Irish people, and of cruelty and of shame on the part of England, that you have entered into a struggle with the entire body of the Irish population, and that in the end you will have gained nothing but an enormously greater crop of hatred, and misery than even that which has been bequeathed to you by your predecessors.

Let me draw attention to an additional point—namely, that under this clause when a Proclamation has once been issued, and an order made under it and signed, a particular association will become, ipso facto, an unlawful association and every member of it, although he may have done nothing more than become a member of the association, will be, ipso facto, a member of an unlawful association; and I know of no distinction between an unlawful association and a criminal combination or conspiracy. Consequently, this clause gives to the Lord Lieutenant the power of declaring that any individual who chooses to join an association in Ireland may by the mere fact of his membership be proceeded against as a person engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The Act of 1882 in section 9 declared that the members of an unlawful association were guilty of an offence; but it then went on to define that it must be an association formed for criminal purposes, leaving it to the Courts to affirm whether that was so or not. It was not left to the Lord Lieutenant to say whether it was a criminal association or not; but it was the duty of the Court to say whether a certain condition of crime applied to a particular individual brought before the Court. That is a very grave distinction. Here by the mere issue of the Proclamation, and the signing of the order, an individual becomes the member of an unlawful association guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy. And although he may not have moved a finger, he becomes triable by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for an offence under the present Bill, and with combined offences under the Whiteboy Acts. Although we were told that it was to be abandoned the penalty will really be cumulative. A dangerous association is to be a dangerous association for every purpose, and after a Proclamation has been issued every person who is declared to be a member of a dangerous association becomes guilty of an offence under the Whiteboy Acts, for which he may be punished by 5 years' penal servitude. The Act of 1882 laid down that before the provisions of the Act were put in force, something equivalent to the reading of the Riot Act should have taken place, and until which no person should be held to have been guilty of an offence. There is consequently a grave distinction between the provisions of the Act of 1882 and of the present measure. In this case the Lord Lieutenant is to create a crime and then to declare that a man is a criminal without affording him an opportunity of altering his course. The Bill withdraws him from the ordinary Courts of the country, and gives the Lord Lieutenant an arbitrary power of dealing with the case. The Act of 1882 was bad enough; but it left it to the Courts to decide whether a man was guilty of a crime or not. Once the Proclamation is laid before the House, it is to continue to be valid for a certain period. And there is no machinery provided here even for securing the discussion of the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation, or for compelling the House to take any notice of it, and it will be in the power of the Government to interpose other things which would effectually prevent the discussion of the matter. Probably, if the Amendment were carried it would not have much effect in the condition of things which is to exist after this Bill becomes law; but it would afford the House an opportunity of discussing the Proclamation before it is signed, although I admit that with the power of closure which the Government now possess, and which they have so freely exercised, the idea that any protracted discussion could arise upon the question is perfectly illusory. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

There is one matter which arises upon this question which has hardly received sufficient notice. At the outset of the consideration of this Bill, it was repeated ad nauseam from the Treasury Bench that this measure created no new offence. The Chief Secretary has avowed now not only that it creates new offences, but that it enables the Lord Lieutenant to create any number of new offences which will be punishable under the Act. This very clause places in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant the power of creating a variety of new offences at his own will and pleasure, and it is now proposed that we are to be denied any control over his action. In the whole history of the jurisprudence of this country no more remarkable law has been enacted, nor has this House ever before parted with the power of creating new offences, or of adjudicating in regard to the punishment which is to be inflicted for such offences. In this Bill we not only part with the entire power of creating offences, but also with the power of inflicting punishment almost ad infinitum. Any Resident Magistrate will not only have the power of sentencing a man to six months' imprisonment for any particular offence, but there may be 20 offences charged, in regard to each of which the same sentence can be inflicted at the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant. And this power is to be given without any practical supervision on the part of this House. When the House is called together no onus will rest upon the Government to bring any Proclamation before Parliament. There is no provision whatever for the reconsideration of the Proclamation, and as long as the Government are sure of their majority they can do anything they like about the Proclamation, raining halters on the Irish people, and inflicting six months' imprisonment for every act they choose to call an offence. That is to be the case if Parliament is sitting; but, in the event of Parliament not sitting, there is no provision whatever for bringing the matter before the House. Suppose that one of these Proclamations had been issued now, what chance would any hon. Member have of securing a day for its discussion, even if he tried to do so by means of the Bill?

I only desire to draw two distinctions, which I think have not been drawn in the discussion which has taken place with regard to this clause. The practice of the House, in framing an Act of Parliament in which Rules are necessary, has always been this—Parliament makes the law, and it gives a prescribed authority to make Rules conformable to the law so made; but in all such cases there are two powers. In the first place, there is the power of Parliament to quash the Rules when they are laid on the Table of the House; and, in the second place, there always remains, in the Judges of the land, a power to declare that the Rules are ultra vires. The distinction, in this case, is that the Lord Lieutenant makes the law as well as the rules. A totally different principle, therefore, arises, and a more imperative necessity exists for the Vote of this House in confirmation of the law, as well as of the Rules which may be made by the Lord Lieutenant. Therefore, I maintain that a clear distinction exists in the case of Rules passed by this House, and in a case where the law is made and the Rules put into force by a Member of the Executive in Ireland. But there is another distinction. It is the principle of the Constitution to provide Representatives in this House for localities. Each Member represents a particular locality, and it is his duty to look after that locality. It is his unquestionable right to be able to call attention to grievances affecting the locality he represents. If any locality is proclaimed in Ireland, he should be able to rise in this House and argue whether the Proclamation was right or not, and it should then be for the House to say whether a Proclamation affecting a particular locality is a matter that ought to be discussed and condemned, or discussed and modified. I entirely deny that anyone has as good a right to speak for a locality as the Member who represents it, and the right should be so preserved that the Member should be allowed freely to take advantage of the opportunity of calling attention to any injury his constituents may sustain owing to the issue of a Proclamation under this measure. If the Bill passes in its present form, the Lord Lieutenant and the officials of Dublin Castle will exercise a power equally as despotic as any which is now exercised by the Czar of Russia. For my part, I think it ought to be impossible for any of these laws to be made in Dublin Castle without Parliament having the power of reviewing, rescinding, or confirming them.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 233; Noes 171: Majority 62,—(Div. List, No. 245.) [6.30 p.m.]

I beg to move as an Amendment, in page 5, line 27, to leave out the words "within a period of fourteen days," so as to make it competent for an Address for the nullification of any special Proclamation under the clause to be moved at any time after it has been laid before Parliament. If the Amendment of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton had been accepted it would not have been necessary to move this Amendment; but, probably, it would have been a right and proper thing that the time should be limited within which the sanction of Parliament could be obtained. I very much regret that the Government have seen fit to take a different course. They have provided that it shall not be necessary for them to obtain the sanction of Parliament to a Proclamation issued by the Lord Lieutenant, and, therefore, I maintain that there should be no limit of time in regard to the right of Parliament to condemn or revoke a Proclamation. If it is to be in the power of Parliament at all to nullify a Proclamation, by presenting an Address to the Crown, there is no reason why that should not be done three months after the issue of a Proclamation, as well as a fortnight after. If the question is to rest on a Resolution to present an Address to Her Majesty, it cannot matter how long after the Proclamation has been issued that Resolution may be come to. We have already a precedent for this Amendment in the Bill itself. In a previous clause the Government consented to an Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton which provides, in Section 5, that in the case of certain Proclamations it shall be open to Parliament to nullify such Proclamations by an Address to Her Majesty. That being so, I see no reason whatever why a distinction should be drawn between a Proclamation under Section 5 and a Proclamation under Section 6. If it be a proper thing to nullify a Proclamation in the one case by a Resolution of this House, I submit that the same state of things should be enacted in reference to a Proclamation under this clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 27, to leave out the words "within a period of fourteen days."—( Mr. Maurice Healy. )

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

The Government are of opinion that in giving 14 days, they have given quite sufficient time for hon. Members to move an Address, and within that period a decision ought to be come to. The decision which has just been arrived at by the Committee confirms the Government in the propriety of that course. It is perfectly clear that whatever the result of the issue of a Proclamation may be, the decision of the Lord Lieutenant, if it is to be discussed at all, should be discussed at once. It would be most unsatisfactory to have a Proclamation under which certain steps are to be taken hanging over for a lengthened period before the decision of the Lord Lieutenant can be pronounced to be final. It is clear, I think, that if the step is to be taken at all it should be taken with all reasonable expedition. In giving 14 days the Government think they are giving ample time for hon. Members of this and for Members of the other House of Parliament to make up their minds whether they will sanction the Proclamation or not. We are also of opinion that the Amendment put upon the Paper by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton—namely, that the period should be 30 days instead of 14 days, is one which we cannot accept.

I will ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in Order? The Amendment before the Committee is not a proposal to extend the period to 30 days; but to leave out the limitation, as it now stands, in the Bill.

I was only pointing out that the Government can neither accept 30 days nor six months. If the Proclamation is to be decided by the House the sooner a decision is arrived at the better. We think that if there is to be a Resolution of this House such Resolution ought to be moved at once. We cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that we are desirous of having a considerable interval between the Proclamation coming into effect and the discussion of it in this House, or rather, his argument dealt with the Amendment as if we proposed that for a considerable interval the Proclamation should be suspended. It is nothing of the sort, for the fact would be that the Proclamation would continue in force throughout the sitting of Parliament until it was revoked by a decision of the House. No doubt, it might require a considerable interval, because it would be necessary to inquire into the facts, and it is ridiculous to suppose that in every case that could be done within the limit of 14 days. For instance, the Representative of the locality might be attending to his duty in this House, and might know nothing of the facts, or he might be in gaol himself for an offence under some other provision of the Act. The arguments with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has met the Amendment of my hon. Friend have altogether failed, and are not worthy of consideration. There are many reasons which would justify the Committee in saying that there were circumstances attending the issue of the Proclamation which would justify Parliament in withdrawing it.

What guarantee have we that the discussion will come on and be concluded within the 14 days, and that due time would be given to make provision for an Address to Her Majesty. It may so happen that the Member for the district proclaimed or affected by the Proclamation may be actually in gaol at the time—and this is not a matter of mere imagination in the case of an Irish Member. On the contrary, it has sometimes been a matter of everyday experience. It would seem that Her Majesty's Government will not pledge themselves to afford an opportunity for discussion in the House, and having taken up that position, they will not, as a matter of right, afford an opportunity for hon. Members to secure a discussion, unless they can bring it on within a limit of 14 days. It would be intelligible if it were put in this way—"If within 14 days after Parliament meets, such a Motion is not made" the time shall be extended, but it is too much to put on a limit of 14 days with the power in the hands of the Government of enforcing the clôture. It will be impossible in the teeth of a hostile majority to secure an opportunity for ourselves of bringing on a discussion. Therefore, the position of the Government is altogether illogical. I still think, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that we should as the clause now stands be prevented from discussing the Proclamation. It may be that we are wrong; but if we are wrong, it would not be too much, to ask from the Government that they would in a few words set us right. I will put a case in point. Suppose that a special Proclamation is issued and that Parliament is convened for discussing that Proclamation; Parliament is master of its own time, and if it is convened ostensibly for that discussion, we, the Irish Members, have no power to force that discussion on the House. Suppose the discussion did not come on until the 14th day; what power have we to discuss the Proclamation then, or to close previous discussions so that it might be taken earlier? It is all very well to talk of the sense of the right of hon. Members opposite; but we should be unable to put an end to any discussion they might initiate with the object of preventing us from debating the Proclamation. What is to prevent them indulging in a conspiracy of talk as they have indulged in a conspiracy of silence, which they might carry on to the 15th day after the assembling of Parliament?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, in replying on this Amendment, argued as if the real point was that the limit of 14 days in the Bill was insufficient for the purpose of an Address being presented. That, no doubt, is the meaning of the Amendment next on the Paper; but it is not mine. My point is, that there should be no limit of time in which an Address could be moved, and that is the view of the matter which I wanted to present to the Committee. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not met this argument; because that would have been the proper way to deal with the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not attempt to deny that in a clause of the Bill which has been passed there is a distinct precedent for my proposal. I do not want, however, to go into that at length. My complaint is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have opposed the Amendment without for a moment adverting to the precedent which I ventured to put before him, and that he has not met my proposal on its merits. He has dealt with the Amendment as if the clause, instead of being drawn in its present form, were drawn in the form in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) attempted to put it when he moved the last Amendment. If the clause had taken that form, and made it incumbent on the Government themselves to obtain from the House of Commons an affirmative vote approving their Proclamation, then I concede at once that it would be most improper to limit the time during which that vote should be obtained. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to the benefit of that argument, from the fact that the Government has just refused to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. Then, again, the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has attempted to deal with the Amendment as if under Clause 6 Parliament had presented an Address nullifying the Proclamation, and as if everything had been previously done in Committee in connection with Boycotting But that is not the effect of it. Even if an Address is moved in the House of Commons, yet according to the clause as it stands, everything that is intended to be done under the Proclamation will be done, because while it is in force it is valid, and no one can appeal from the action of the authorities. That being so, no one can say that the Executive or the Government would be in any way injured by waiting even an indefinite period before the Resolution is taken on the presentation of an Address; and even if three, six, or nine months elapsed, at the end of that time no one could take any action against the Executive in respect of what they had done, although they might have acted wrongly during that long interval. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is therefore not entitled to make use of any argument that could be drawn from the fact that the parties injured have a remedy against the Government; and for that reason I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely failed to answer the case I have put forward, and that, no matter what time had elapsed, the House of Commons should be able to Address Her Majesty for the purpose of having the Proclamation nullified.

It seems to me this is a good example of the inveterate hostility of the Government to every Amendment proposed from these Benches, good or bad, rea- sonable or unreasonable. We have here an Amendment of precisely the same character as that which, has been inserted in a previous clause of the Bill. The Government accepted that Amendment because it came from another part of the House; now it will not accept a precisely similar Amendment from us.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 200; Noes 124: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 246.) [7.10 p.m.]

As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton is not in his place, I rise to move the Amendment which stands next in his name. I am bound to say that I am principally impelled to move that Amendment from the fact that we have not had any answer to the last Amendment. It is in the recollection of the Committee that the last discussion turned upon the point whether there should be a limit of 14 days or no limit at all, in respect of the time of moving for an Address. The present issue is kindred to that, but narrower, and it rests on the difference between 14 and 30 days. The principle which we want to assert is, that it shall not be possible by any trick or sleight that Parliament should shirk the discussion. The clause provides that unless an Address be presented within 14 days after the assembling of Parliament the Proclamation shall stand. That looks reasonable enough, but it is quite possible that on the first day of the Parliament a Member may move the adjournment of the House on a matter that has been arranged beforehand, and we might be unable to open the discussion on that day. And it must be borne in mind that the conception of this clause is that Parliament is called together after a lapse of time. There might be many matters of public importance to be discussed, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite should then throw off the cloud of silence that now overshadows them they might carry the discussion over the 14th day by some fluke, and the discussion on the Proclamation being prevented, the Proclamation would stand. Will the Government stand up and say whether they will insert a provision in the clause by which the discussion of the Proclamation shall be ensured. If there should be a special Proclamation affecting the con- stituency of North West Kerry, I should, as Member for that county, look upon myself as the most important Member of the House in that discussion, because I am, rightly or wrongly, the chosen Representative of that District; I ask whether you will leave it in the power of any Member of this House by any evasion to protract the proceedings in this House for 14 days, and so prevent me from drawing attention to a matter which affects my constituents? No doubt, everyone who speaks in this House supposes that every argument which he introduces in debate is conclusive, and it occurs to me that I have made out a strong case for this Amendment. I wish to draw attention to what was stated in this House the other evening. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is responsible to the majority in the House of Commons, and that if he does anything wrong that majority will call him to account. I must at the outset say that we attach more importance to the discussion of a matter in this House than to the vote which the House may give upon it afterwards. If I may for a moment refer to the discussion of last night, I should say that to our minds we had the victory, although the Vote was with the Government. So in the case of a Proclamation the Government may support the action of the Lord Lieutenant, they may vote us down at the end, but what we want is to exercise our right of discussion and place our claim together with the answer of the Government before the country. Now, is it attaching too much discredit to the present Government to say that it is quite possible for them to permit their supporters to prevent the discussion which we desire. We have seen, where an hon. Member has put a Motion on the Paper calling attention to jury-packing, the Government Members skedaddle from the House when the time for discussion came on; and do you not believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite would adopt similar tactics, and, in some way or other, consume the 14 days named in the clause? They may not give us an opportunity for bringing forward our Motion. What guarantee have we that hon. Gentlemen opposite—always political partizans of the Lord Lieutenant—will not continue the discussion on the matters taken first on the assembling of Parliament, beyond the 14 days prescribed? Whereas, if the House came to the conclusion that the Lord Lieutenant had done wrong in the matter of a Proclamation, that very expression of opinion will be nullified by what has taken place. This argument seems to me to have some weight, and I should like, if right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not think it too much trouble, to hear some answer to the view which I have ventured to place before the House.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 27, leave out "fourteen" and insert "thirty."—( Mr. Edward Harrington. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause."

With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member, I am of opinion that it would rather have the effect of weakening the control of the House in this matter. The principle here is the same as that of the last Amendment, although the period is only extended for 30 days in place of the indefinite postponement proposed in the other case. I cannot help thinking that the proposal of the hon. Member would be entirely useless. It is not at all probable that the debate could be put off by the insertion of a dilatory Motion, as suggested by the hon. Member; whereas, on the other hand, the acceptance of the Amendment might have the effect of retarding the release of persons who, in the event of the House annulling the Proclamation, would have been released at an earlier date.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland does not seem to me to understand the force of this Amendment. He says that the effect of it would be that if the Proclamation be not sanctioned by Parliament, a person imprisoned in consequence of the Proclamation would remain in prison for 30 days instead of 14, in the event of the Proclamation being annulled. The position in which we find ourselves is this—the space of 14 days may be too short to allow us to get up such evidence in the country as would enable us to put before the House a sound reason why the Proclamation should not be sanctioned by Parliament. I can only suppose that the Lord Lieutenant would have considered the question of proclaiming a district for a considerable period, and that he would have gathered evidence from various sources during the time; but the Proclamation would be sprung upon us, no notice whatever would be given by the Lord Lieutenant, and the first intimation of what has been done would be the announcement in The Gazette. I may illustrate my meaning by reference to a case which has recently occurred in the constituency I represent. There are two churches at the place I allude to, one of which is wrecked; the church was Protestant, and conducted on High Church principles. The Catholics there have met and passed a resolution expressing indignation at the outrage, and, together with the Protestant part of the community, are working to obtain evidence as to the perpetrators, who are known; but the evidence against them will, I believe, not be obtained for some time. Now, suppose a Proclamation has been issued. I, as the Member for the constituency concerned, come here and ask the House not to assent to the Proclamation; but it would be impossible for me—although I may be certain as to the facts—to lay the necessary evidence before the House at once, because time would be required to get it together. But there would be evidence that the church had been wrecked. I could not deny it, and I should very reasonably ask for an extension of time, say 10 days, for the purpose of obtaining the evidence necessary to support my case. Whether the time be 14 or 30 days, the Address can only be proposed on one occasion; and the only object sought is that those who have to make the Motion should have a sufficient time for the purpose of getting evidence. Can there be anything more reasonable than that? I presume you have fixed the period of 14 days without any particular reason, and it is purely a question now whether you consider that 14 days is sufficient in all circumstances, or whether that might not be insufficient in some cases, and that, therefore, the longer period of 30 days should not be inserted in the clause. Since this could not affect the Bill or the discussion in this House, surely the Government might fairly agree to the Amendment we propose. I am bound to say, in conclusion, that it appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not given a particle of sound reason against this Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seems to attach no importance whatever to the time during which the Motion is to be made. Now, if the time be of no importance in this matter, why does he not put down seven instead of 14 days? If the argument holds good in respect of 30 and 14 days, seven days would have been equally admissible. Since the Committee has decided against the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), there is nothing left to us but the chance of the ballot, and we all know what is the value of that in this case. When many Members are anxious to get their favourite subjects discussed, it is in the power of the Government so to obstruct our chance of getting discussion in this House, that the 14 days may very well elapse without any discussion taking place at all. But it is not only here that obstruction of what we desire to bring forward will take place; it is necessary, in order to lay a good case before the House, that we should set on foot in Ireland certain investigations. Now, it is in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to obstruct those investigations. We know, from experience of the operation of former Acts, that men in Ireland are almost afraid of their own shadows, and anyone that shows himself a sympathizer with our object will be struck at by means of this Act. Everyone who has evidence that would make good our case would be in fear of his liberty, and would hesitate to do what the case required. I am not now drawing on my imagination to make this statement; I remember the time when every man in Ireland was in this state of fear; I remember when two or three men could not meet in the street and speak together but they were joined by a policeman, who took part in the conversation, and if they said anything that aroused his suspicion they were put in prison. The same thing is likely to occur again; and in that way it will be very easy for the Government, if they do not desire to have the Proclamation discussed, to prevent our obtaining the evidence necessary to support our case. Time is, therefore, of the utmost value to us, and we hold that 14 days are insufficient to procure discussion in this House, taking into account the possible chance of the Government obstructing us. Therefore, we say that the Government ought to accept this Amendment. What difference can it make to the Government whether the time is 14 days or 30? Their Proclamation will remain in force all the time; people will have been arrested, brought before the Resident Magistrates, and committed to prison under the Summary Jurisdiction Clause. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that all those who have suffered will be released if the Address is carried; but it is of more importance to us that we should have time to show this House and the world that an act of injustice has been done, than that a few individuals should be relieved from suffering the inconvenience of imprisonment, or that the magistrate should have the opportunity of putting them to the rack in a private investigation. If the Government will not give us this extension of time for the purpose of exposing the injustice that may be done, I think it a matter of very little importance whether we discuss the whole of the Amendments on the Paper or not to-night, and the closure may just as well come now as at 10 o'clock. I hold that reasons have been offered which ought to impress any Government composed of reasonable men the justice of the slight concession asked for; but they are deaf to all entreaties, and they pay no attention to any argument, no matter how cogent or earnestly urged it may be. I do not at all attempt to urge on the Government, with any hope of success, the reasons which we think ought to induce them to accept this Amendment; it is simply our duty to advance these arguments, and, having done so, we shall be satisfied with that, whether we go to a Division or not.

I am afraid that the Government have not given the real reason why they will not accept this Amendment. Their real object is, no doubt, to avoid discussion. The right hon. Gentleman does not want to have discussion on his administration of this Act, whatever it may be. I do not suppose the New Rules which have been foreshadowed will be in operation next Session; but it is, at any rate, quite possible, in my opinion, that some limitation of debate will take place by the application of the existing closure. There will, however, be considerable time at the beginning of the Session devoted to the debate on the Address, and the remainder of the 14 days may be occupied with much more important matter than the action of the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says we can shorten discussion on the previous questions, and if we do not get discussion it will be because we shall have prolonged debate on other matters. That is just what we were told last night with regard to the Land Bill, which, it was said, we were delaying by our protracted discussion of this Bill. It does not seem to enter into the head of the right hon. Gentleman that we attach more importance, as we do, to the proposed destruction of Irish liberties than even to the saving of the interests of one class in Ireland, urgently though those interests require to be safeguarded. The Coercion Bill is much more important than any Land Bill which the Government can introduce; and, therefore, it was absurd to say last night that we had prevented that Bill coming forward by protracting the debate on this Bill for the suppression of liberty in Ireland. Now, this may happen again; at the beginning of next Session we may have half-a-dozen or a score of these Proclamations before us; and a Minister may get up and tell us that if we discuss them we shall delay another Land Bill of the Government, and lose the benefit of some magnificent measure, which would at once solve the whole of the Agricultural Question in Ireland. The same arguments will be produced to shorten discussion as were used last night in reference to the debate on this Bill. Hon. Members will observe that by the wording of the clause two questions will arise. The question will be not only with regard to the circumstances under which the Proclamations were originally issued, but also as to the reasons why they should continue in force; and thus the time required for adequate discussion will not be brief in any single case. It seems, however, of very little use to discuss this question farther, for Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are not only not listening, but ostentatiously paying no attention to what is addressed to them.

There is one point that we have omitted to bring forward—namely, that we may have an accumulated series of Proclamations to be discussed. When Parliament re-assembles, it may have 100 Proclamations to deal with. This will amount to a physical impossibility, and the difficulty is one which, as the clause now stands, I defy the Government to get out of. Besides this, the debate on the Address may be interrupted by a Motion for Urgency, or something of the kind, which would prevent the Proclamations being discussed. It is certainly not unreasonable, then, that we should ask for this extension of time. Granted we get an opportunity for the discussion of one Proclamation, suppose you proclaim the Moonlighters' Society in Kerry, and that at the same time you proclaim the Orange Society in the North of Ireland, and a branch of the National League that is particularly aggressive and obnoxious. Is it not reasonable to ask that when an opportunity is afforded for the discussion of of a Proclamation there should also be provision made for the taking of a vote of the House upon the Proclamation? I do not know whether, by dint of shouting, I could prevail on right hon. Gentlemen opposite to pay any attention; but what I notice is that they have made no provision by which the closure could be applied to the debates on the Proclamations under this section. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland explain how the vote of this House is to be ensured at the end of 14 days? If he can tell me that, the present discussion will end. It is not, as I have said before, that we have any special predilection for 30 days as against 14 days. All we desire is that a Proclamation shall be brought before Parliament, and a vote of Parliament taken upon it. We cannot put in a Crimes Act a closure provision; for instance, we could not say — "Always provided that at 10 p.m. on the 14th day a Motion expressing approval or disapproval of such Proclamation shall be put from the Chair." Now, Sir, this is a commonsense proposal. I repeat that the 14th day practically means the 10th day. We have had experience of cases in which Addresses have gone over the 10th night, and I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), who is such an adept at the use of the closure, will be fascinated by my proposal. What I am suggesting is really that the closure should be introduced into this Crimes Act — an Act abrogating the liberties of the Irish people. Will the right hon. Gentleman, or any other Member of the Government, give us an assurance that there shall always be, on the 14th day, either the application of the closure, or an effort made on the part of the Government of the day to bring about a vote upon the Proclamation under review? If the Government will not do that, we have only to fall back on the old position; it is a weak position numerically, but a very strong position morally. It is that the Government see before them a clear case made out, and yet, for fear that they may be suspected of yielding to the Irish Members, who are guilty of the monstrosity of representing a majority of their countrymen, they will not give way. We have put forward a very strong case, and the Government have practically no answer. If they do not give way in this matter their position is perfectly illogical.

Question put, and agreed to.

I notice, from the 3rd sub-section, as it is at present drawn, that if a Proclamation is laid before the House of Commons the day before the House is prorogued or dissolved, we would have only one working day on which to discuss its merits; there would really be 13 blind days during which it would be impossible for us to do anything at all in regard to the Proclamation. I therefore beg to move to insert, after the word "days," in line 27, the words "or the next ten Sittings of the House of Commons, whichever shall be longer, next." I presume this Amendment will be accepted by the Government, as it is unquestionably a most reasonable one. If we are to get 14 days, they ought to be 14 effective days, and not one effective day and 13 blind days, which would be the case, as I have already shown, if the Proclamation were only laid upon the Table of the House of Commons the day previous to the Prorogation or Dissolution.

I may say, in reference to this Amendment, that I understand that the Common Law of Parliament, acted upon so recently as the end of last Session, provides that when a Paper is laid before Parliament in respect of which action must be taken within a certain time, and that time has not elapsed when the Session expires, the Paper must be re-presented at the beginning of the next Sitting.

May I be allowed to point out to you, Sir, that the decisions to which you refer were under circumstances which required action to be taken? It was the duty of Parliament to take action upon certain Returns presented to the House.

I was referring to the case in which there was power on the part of the House to present an Address against an education scheme under the Endowed Schools Act.

, &c.): Is it not a fact, Sir, that an education scheme becomes effective when it has been laid on the Table of the House for 60 days, unless an Address is presented against it?

There, you see, a longer period elapsed in case the House took no action; but in the case of a Proclamation under this Act only 14 days are allowed. Of course, Mr. Courtney, I am in the hands of the Committee; but I should like to hear what the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has to say upon this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 17, after "days," insert "or the next ten Sittings of the House of Commons which ever shall be longer, next."—( Mr. Chance. )

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

I think, Sir, the dangers the hon. Gentleman wishes to guard against are illusory. The danger we wish to guard against is not illusory. It is the danger that you may be extending the time in which a Proclamation may lie on the Table of the House, and run the risk of keeping people unnecessarily in prison at hard labour, under the Proclamation. I do not think—and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) will bear me out—when I say that no responsible Government would or could refuse legitimate time for the discussion of a Proclamation of this kind, considering that Parliament has expressed in this Act its view of the solemnity of the occasion by introducing words of the kind which are introduced in this Act. I therefore hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment, which I really think is not required to carry out his object, an object with which I entirely sympathize.

May I point out that I am not wedded to 10 Sittings; I would say eight Sittings for the matter of that. I merely desire we should have some effective Parliamentary time during which to discuss the merits of a Proclamation. When I look at the 4th sub-section I find Prorogation days are dealt with specifically, and it therefore seems to me that it might be argued that the ordinary doctrine as to the re-presenting Papers would not hold good in such a case as this. For that reason I should very much like that some words should be inserted.

Well, I will inquire into the action of the law of Parliament in the matter, and if I find it is possible that the Government could be so extraordinarily ill-advised as to summon Parliament to issue a Proclamation for a particular purpose, and then within 24 hours prorogue it, I will do what I can to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.

This 3rd sub-section does not deal with Proclamations for which Parliament is to be called together. It deals with Proclamations which are laid before the House, already sitting for other Business. It might be necessary, having first declared you will prorogue Parliament on a certain day, to lay a Proclamation on the Table, three, or two, or even a day before Parliament disperses. It is not then an easy matter even for the Leader of the House to give the House an opportunity of dealing with such Proclamations. Parliamentary control will disappear wholly after the lapse of 14 days, 13 days of which may have been wholly ineffective or useless.

If the danger which the hon. Gentleman seems to apprehend is possible I undertake that the section shall be remedied on Report.

There is another point in relation to this matter which I think it right to raise. Though the law of Parliament would compel the Government to present their Proclamation a second time, that fact would not at all give the vote of this House afterwards the validity it would possess if the vote were given within 14 days.

The express purpose of that law is that the vote of the House shall be given.

May I state that if this House passes an Act of Parliament saying that a particular act must be done within 14 days, a Court of Law would not decide that the act would be valid if it was done 40 days afterwards?

I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment; but I must remark that the doctrine as to presenting a Proclamation a second time seems an exceedingly doubtful one, taking in view the express words of the Statute. I do not see what benefit it would be for the persons who have been imprisoned, if the Proclamation were presented a second time, after the lapse of three, four, or six months.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The particular point which I wish to raise, Mr. Courtney, is that instead of enacting, as the clause does, that the Address of either House of Parliament will nullify a Proclamation, that power should be limited to an Address of the Commons House of Parliament. I may say at once I move this Amendment chiefly in consequence of a passage which appeared in a public letter which attracted some attention, written by Sir George Trevelyan. In that letter Sir George Trevelyan stated that in his view this power of reserving to either branch of the Legislature the abrogation of the Proclamation by voting an Address was practically inserted in the Bill for the purpose of protecting the Orange Society in case any future Government of a different political tinge to that now existing in Ireland should think fit to proclaim the Orange Society. I am perfectly cognizant of the fact that hitherto it has been the practice of Parliament to vest in either House of Parliament the power of presenting an Address to Her Majesty on any particular point; but, Sir, I make no apology for asking this House to depart from that well-estab- lished precedent in this instance. I move this Amendment because, in my judgment, the circumstances of the case, as they will exist in Ireland when these Proclamations shall be lawful, require that the power of abrogating a Proclamation should be vested solely in the House of Commons. I think the circumstances require it for the purpose of placing both political Parties in Ireland on an equality in regard to Proclamations. If the clause is to pass as it stands at present I do not think that the political Parties in Ireland will be upon an equality. Now, it is well known that at present our Party in Ireland has its own organization. The Nationalists have their organization, which is commonly called the National League, and the Orangemen have their organization. Now, the Government take power in this Bill to suppress associations. They take general power which we know they will only exercise for one purpose—namely, the suppression of the National League. Now, the fact is present in the minds of the Government that it is necessary to give this power in a general form, and that in consequence of the general form it is possible that some succeeding Government, not viewing political questions from the standpoint they view them, may use the power to strike at the Party Gentlemen opposite consider to be their friends; consequently they protect themselves, as I say, by retaining in the other branch of the Legislature the power of nullifying the possible action of a succeeding Government by presenting an Address to Her Majesty declaring that a Proclamation suppressing, we will say, the Orange Society, is an improper Proclamation. I do not think that is fair; it puts one Party in Ireland in a more favourable position than the other. If this power is to exist it should exist for both Parties alike; but I say it will not so exist as long as one branch of the Legislature has vested in it the power of nullifying the act of a Government of a different political tinge to itself. Now, it may be said that what you give to one branch of the Legislature it is only fair to give to the other branch; but permit me to point out that while the Commons House of Parliament, to which we belong, from time to time varies in its composition—this branch of the Legislature is liable to be revolutionized in its composition at every General Election—we know that such is not the case in respect to the other branch of the Legislature. The House of Lords does not undergo the same reconstitution as this House does; there is little change in its composition. In practice a Tory majority has existed in "another place" for a very long time; and, as far as we can see, such a majority is likely to be found there indefinitely. That being so, I do not think the two Houses stand on exactly the same footing, so far as the exercise of the power of this sub-section goes. Now, Sir, I do not know whether it would be in Order, on an Amendment which raises the question of the composition of the other House of the Legislature, to discuss the general attitude of that House. It is not my intention to discuss the attitude of the House of Lords; but I think, at any rate, I may be allowed to say that our own experience for many years past has been that the House of Lords look on Irish questions in a manner which, at any rate, the majority of the people of Ireland regard as a manner hostile to them. The people I and my Colleagues represent entertain, very naturally, the apprehension that the other branch of Legislature would not exercise the power conferred upon them by this section in a manner which would be fair from the point of view of the Nationalist Party of Ireland. That being so, I ask that on this occasion, in respect to this exceptional measure, we should depart from precedent. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "either," and insert "the Commons."—( Mr. Maurice Healy. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'either' stand part of the Clause."

I quite agree with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) that this is an exceedingly important question; and I do not, for one moment, say he has occupied too much time in introducing it. At the same time, let me point out why it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out, perfectly accurately, that it would be a departure from precedent to lay down the rule that one House of Parliament, as distinguished from the other, should have a preference in such matters as this. The Bill has gone further than is usual in this direction, because hitherto, in similar cases, Addresses have been required from both Houses of Parliament. I am aware hon. Members below the Gangway opposite decline to give us credit for any good intentions in introducing this Bill; but I assert that the object of framing the clause in its present form was that a future majority of the House of Commons, should it not agree with the policy of any previous Government, might be able to nullify a Proclamation. Now, the hon. Member says we cannot trust the House of Lords—that the Tory majority in the House of Lords has for a long time, by its policy, shown itself to be hostile to the wishes of the Party to which he belongs—and that, therefore, he and his hon. Friends cannot agree to this power being placed in the hands of the Upper House. We cannot, in the present condition of matters, recognize that it would be a right thing to draw a distinction between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in this respect. At present both Houses are branches of the Legislature; but I dare say it will not be long before some Motion is made in this House to curtail the powers of "another place." As long as the House of Lords forms part of the Constitution we must recognize its rights. The argument which the hon. Member (Mr. Maurice Healy) advances is this—that the House of Lords is actuated by such motives that it would not deal fairly with a Proclamation relating to the Orange Association. I ask the hon. Gentleman seriously if he really means to suggest that if the association is of such a character as to come under the Sub-heads A, B, C, D, and E—[Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Yes; E.]—I take any one of the sub-heads—if, as I assume, the association is of a character as to be dangerous—

You cannot assume that.

The hypothesis on which this Amendment is proposed is that there is to be power vested in one House of Parliament to present an Address to the Crown, and thereby bring to an end a special Proclamation. The argument of the hon. Gentleman is that, however bad an association may be, if it is connected with the Orange Party the House of Lords will not approve of its proclamation—that unless the Irish party have a majority in the House of Commons there is no means of securing the proclamation of the Orange Association, even if there is ground for its proclamation. We cannot recognize that principle. We believe that as long as the House of Lords have the power of presenting Addresses we ought to give them the credit of doing their duty. We say it would not be a proper thing, and this would not be the proper time, to draw a distinction between one House and the other. If an association is one which ought to be suppressed we believe the House of Lords will sanction its suppression. One word more upon the question from a practical point of view. Just consider for a moment what the position will be; if the Nationalist Party object to a Proclamation and have a majority in the House of Commons, why then they can of course, by an adverse vote, turn out the Government of the day, and there would be no difficulty whatever in getting an Address presented which would put an end to the Proclamation to which objection is taken. Under the present circumstances, we feel it our duty to give the same rights to the House of Lords as we give to the House of Commons.

The House of Lords has always been regarded as the guardian of property, and this House has always been considered as the guardian, so far as England is concerned, of the liberty of the subject. Now, suppose that in the Bill which we hear is in "another place" there was provided, not that oppressive and tyrannical power should be exercised on the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but that the Lord Lieutenant should declare, under certain circumstances, that the exaction of rent in Ireland should be stopped. I assume that you would not, preliminary to passing such a power, dream of giving the House of Lords power to veto the action of the Lord Lieutenant. In this matter the House of Commons are placing in the hands of the one man, the Lord Lieutenant, certain tyrannical and oppressive powers. These powers are delegated by this House, and not by the House of Lords. This House, therefore, should retain the power of putting an end to the powers. There is a clear distinction between the two Houses in this matter. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) agrees with me that it would be absurd to give the House of Lords the power of vetoing such a provision in the Land Bill as I have sketched, he will certainly agree with me that it is equally absurd to give them the power of nullifying a Proclamation by presenting an Address to the Crown. The hon. and learned Attorney General says we may have a majority in this House. We may have a majority for a particular purpose, but we may not have a majority which will unite in giving a vote which will have the effect of turning out a Government. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) proposes a great departure from precedent; but then it has been well pointed out that this is exceptional legislation.

The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) concluded his speech with a very clear truism. He said that when we were in a majority in this House no injustice will be done to us. Certainly, it is not the proclamation of the National League we shall be discussing then. Of that I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman. It will not be a mere question of the proclamation of this or that branch of the National League we shall be discussing, but probably a very large measure of Home Rule, which will render altogether unnecessary any proclamation of the kind contemplated now. I object to this power being entrusted to the House of Lords, for two reasons. First of all, I object to the mockery of imagining for one moment that the House of Lords will ever condemn any Government for suppressing any branch of the National League. To ask us to believe that the House of Lords, under any circumstances whatever, unless, indeed, in the impossible contingency of the leopard changing his spots—to ask us to imagine the House of Lords under any circumstances will ever condemn the suppression of the National League in Ireland, or of any other popular organization, is to ask us to believe too much. I object to a mockery of that kind being put into the Bill. It is much better that we should be straightforward. We do not believe the House of Lords will ever do anything of the sort; and, therefore, what is the use of asking us, or the outside public, to believe that it will? It is equally a mockery to ask us to believe the House of Lords will ever approve of any Government which condemns the Orange Organization. The hon. and learned Attorney General expresses some surprise at our imagining for a moment that if the Orange Association come under any one of the five descriptions of a dangerous association in this Bill the House of Lords would not condemn it. Well, Sir, we have to judge from experience, and we know that although the history of the Orange Organization, in the words of an Irish Judge, has been like a streak of blood across the pages of the history of Ireland—although the record of the Orange Association is stained with blood in almost every period of its existence—I defy the hon. and learned Attorney General or any other Member of this House, or any gentleman outside the House, to put a finger upon a single act, or word, of the House of Lords condemning the Orange Association. Why, Sir, I do not believe the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) will deny that the most monstrous deeds have been done by the Orange Association. [Mr. JOHNSTON: Rubbish.] I did not think the hon. Gentleman would fly in the face of history, and of Reports of Commissions appointed by his own Party; but of course anything is possible in the case of some hon. Gentlemen. But what I was saying is this, that the Orange Association at various periods of its history has left behind it a record of the most horrible deeds; it has committed outrages of the most atrocious description, and yet on no occasion has the House of Lords, though one or two of its Members may have done so, ever pronounced a censure upon the Orange Association. Well, I do not believe that the leopard is going to change his spots. I do not believe the House of Lords, which has hitherto preserved a certain attitude with regard to the Orange Society, will take up any other attitude. Just imagine the mockery of asking us to believe the House of Lords will ever take notice of outrages which may be perpetrated by the Emergency Associations of Ireland. There are three or four landlord associa- tions in Ireland at the present time, and if we had a sympathetic Government in power, if we had a Government in power which would put into force impartially the 1st section of this Act, I am perfectly certain it would be found that a good many outrages perpetrated in recent years could be traced to the Emergency Association, and could be traced to the other associations organized for the special purpose of preserving the rights of property in Ireland. Just imagine the House of Lords, many of the leading Members of which have taken part in organizing these associations, ever thinking it their duty to pass a censure upon any Government for suppressing these property defence associations. Such a thing will never take place, and it is a perfect mockery to ask us to believe it ever will. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General spoke of the time when we would be in power. When we are in power we shall be able to take care of ourselves, and we will not ask the aid of this House, or of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or of the Party to which he belongs. Our precautions are at present intended for the present time, and for such future time as may run until we are in power. It is for that period, and not for the other and more happy period, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman directed our attention, that we seek to surround this Bill with safeguards. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that the Amendment contained an exceptional provision; but my hon. Friend the Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty) answered the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point, when he pointed out that the entire provisions of this Bill are exceptional. This is an exceptional measure. From beginning to end it is exceptional legislation; and, therefore, to meet this Amendment by saying it contains an exceptional provision is really trifling with the intelligence of hon. Members of this House. The Amendment is really an important one. It puts the two political organizations on an equality. If you do not adopt it, the National League, the popular organization, and all kindred associations will be suppressed. The Orange Society, with the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) at the head of it, will be triumphant. No power will be allowed by the Government to come between the hon. Member and victory. What we ask is, that even under this Coercion Act something like an appearance of equality, something like an appearance of impartiality, be given to the proceedings of the Government. If this is not so, it will be a bad thing for the Government, and even for the Orange Society.

As I have been so pointedly alluded to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), I must ask the indulgence of the Committee for a few minutes. Reference has been made to the Orange Association, with which I am proud to be intimately connected. If the Orange Association comes under any of the provisions of the clause now being discussed—if it is a dangerous association, if any of its members conspire against the Government of the country, or disturb the peace of the country.

It killed a policeman and a soldier, amongst a number of others, in the single town of Belfast last summer.

If it in any way interfered with the civil or religious rights of any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, I, for one, would cease all connection with the Orange Society. But the association is distinctly of a loyal character. Its object is the maintenance of the Protestant Constitution of this Kingdom—

Order, order! The hon. Member having repudiated the accusation brought against the Orange Society, this discussion ought to close.

Question put, and agreed to.

I beg to move, in line 26, to leave out the words "any such Proclamation shall be deemed to have expired," in order to insert—

"As to an association or associations named or described therein, such special Proclamation shall be deemed null and void, so far as the same relates to such association or associations,"

which will make the clause read thus—

"As to an association or associations named or described therein, such special Proclamation shall be deemed null and void, so far as relates to such association or associations, if within a period of 14 days after the same has been laid before Parliament an Address has been presented to Her Majesty by either House of Parliament praying that such special Proclamation shall not continue in force."

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 26, to leave out the words "any such Proclamation shall be deemed to have expired."—( Mr. Chance. )

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

I think the Amendment the hon. Member proposes is entirely inconsistent with the Bill, or with those parts of it already agreed to, and I cannot conceive why the hon. Member should propose it.

Why do you not move a "count?"