said, he should support the clause, which mitigated the severity of a very harsh enactment, which constituted a grave abuse of criminal procedure. The case of Father Fahy was a case in point. It was a very objectionable thing that Father Fahy should be bound over to keep the peace. In his case it was merely the evidence of one man on oath against Father Fahy's word. If Father Fahy could have been examined and cross-examined, he would probably not have been sent to gaol.

said, it was remarkable that it was on this particular clause that the First Lord of the Treasury had given Notice of his second gagging Resolution. Surely he might have chosen a more fitting opportunity. He could assure the Government, however, that Irish Members would take care that this fact was brought home to the minds of the people of England, who would be shown the reason for this procedure.

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss upon this clause the general Question or the Resolution of which Notice was given last night.

I will not say any more on the subject. I was about to finish the point by saying—

Order, order! I have told the hon. Member that he is out of Order, and I expect he will obey my ruling.

said, he would not further pursue the subject. He contended that the clause would take out of the hands of the Government one of the rusty weapons of despotism which the tyrannical practice of Dublin Castle in recent years had brought out of the obscurity in which they had lain for centuries. The refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment simply meant that they wished for a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. The exercise of powers in Ireland in recent years, which had been long obsolete in this country, had amounted to a virtual suspension of that Act. In 1880 and 1881 several ladies, and even priests, who had taken up the work of helping evicted tenants in Ireland, had been called upon as bad characters to give bail, and, on refusing thus to admit the imputations against them, had been imprisoned without any charge being brought againt them, much less proved. It was not too much to ask that if this power of holding persons to bail, and, in the event of their refusing to give bail, sending them to gaol, was to be revived, a primâ facie case should first be made out by the prosecutor. So much for the first sub-section of the proposed clause. The second sub-section of this clause really proposed to assimilate the practice of the Superior Courts to the practice which existed in the Inferior Courts at the present moment. What they asked was that this practice which now existed in the Inferior Courts of allowing the accused to give evidence in his defence should be available to the accused in the Superior Courts also. Anything more absurd and intolerable on the part of the Government than refusing an Amendment of this description, he could not imagine. The safeguard was a reasonable one, and he warned the Government that these refusals to listen to reason or to answer the appeals of Irish Members would hereafter, and possibly in the near future, re-act upon themselves, and, he trusted, disastrously, both for them and for the infamous cause which they were now engaged in maintaining.

said, that the title of this Bill was a misnomer, as it was called a Bill to amend the Cri- minal Law; whereas, so far from amending that law, it in effect took away all Criminal Law in Ireland, and gave large and arbitrary powers to the Lord Lieutenant to do what he liked against persons belonging to any association, and without being put upon their trial. The Bill would take away in Ireland all the protection which was given in England by law. If this Amendment were not accepted, it would be possible for anyone who bought a copy of Parnellism and Crime in Ireland to have the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), or anyone else mentioned in that pamphlet, brought before a magistrate, who might call upon him to give security to any amount. He contended that, in order to prevent the arbitrary use of this power, which was rarely, if ever, put in force in England, except against offenders of the lowest class, and where threats of violence to person or property had been used, a clause of this nature ought to be introduced in the Bill. He, therefore, appealed to the Government to accept the principle of it. The great want in Ireland was something like a good understanding between the Government and the people. At present they were separated by a chasm as wide as the Atlantic. The people distrusted the Government and the Government distrusted the people. Let the Government show that they were animated by an intention to suppress crime and to preserve law and order, as they could, by accepting this clause, and something would be done to bring about a better understanding between them and the Irish people.

said, that the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment afforded the strongest possible confirmation of the fact that the policy of exasperation which this Bill proclaimed in Ireland was preceded by the exasperating policy of the brute force of numbers in that House. The Government could not allege that there was anything in this clause contrary to the maintenance of law and order or to the spirit of equity and justice. On the other hand, it could not be denied that many cases which had occurred proved the necessity for limiting the power of magistrates to bind persons over to keep the peace.

said, he could quite understand the tactics Ministers were adopting on all these Amendments. No matter what was proposed by Irish Members a brief reply was given from the Treasury Bench, and the servile lot who followed the Government had the word passed to them to keep their lips sealed. The object of this conspiracy of silence was perfectly plain—namely, to impress the public outside with the belief that the Amendments proposed by the Irish Members were unworthy of their serious attention.

Order, order! I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the clause before the House. At present he has not addressed a single word to the clause.

said, he regretted that he should have been tempted to irrelevancy. No person ought to be called upon to give recognizances to keep the peace unless it could be proved that he had committed a criminal offence. In Ireland, under the existing law, a man might be bound over to keep the peace because a magistrate did not like the colour of his hair. The exercise of such a power on the part of a magistrate was practically unknown in England. This power might be abused and might take the form of persecution. The magistrates in England had power to bind people to keep the peace; but only in cases where threats or molestation had been used. The Government could not pretend that once they had got this Act, with all the enormous powers which it conferred upon them, which vested the administration of the whole Criminal Law in Ireland in the hands of two or three—

I must remind the hon. Member that he is repeating the same arguments in the most tedious manner, and I must warn him seriously.

said, he regretted if he had been guilty of transgression; and, in conclusion, said that the passing of this measure would furnish a very convenient opportunity for putting an end, in its obsolete form, to the power to which he had referred.

said, he must earnestly protest against the conduct of hon. Members opposite. He would not enter into the question whether the particular clause which had been debated for three hours was important or not, because whether important or not it had no connection whatever with the subject-matter of the Bill. Therefore, if hon. Members insisted on still debating the clause, knowing that the time which could be given to the discussion of the Bill was limited, the only conclusion which could be drawn was that they did not want that the really important questions connected with the Bill should be discussed at all. He would not take up any more of the time of the House; it was sufficient that he should have stated the view which the Government took of the matter.

said, he thought a speech like that just delivered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not surprise any Member sitting on those Benches. The right hon. Gentleman came into the House a few minutes before 2 o'cock, sat down for a moment or two, and then complained of the length of the discussion, although the Irish Members had been sitting for two hours arguing in vain, with a single occupant on the Government Benches. Yet when the right hon. Gentleman did favour them with his presence, he never condescended to notice a single argument put forward from the Benches opposite. He thought that the Irish Members ought to congratulate themselves on the contribution to this debate made the previous night by the First Lord of the Treasury. He thought that contribution—

Order, order! Reference to what passed last night is not in Order.

Do I understand the reference to the discussion on this particular clause is not in Order?

But the hon. Gentleman is not referring to that—he is referring to the action of the First Lord of the Treasury.

said, the Irish Members were only asking what was fair and reasonable—namely, that there should be no punishment without a conviction. They perfectly well knew how the arbitrary power which would be placed in the Judges and magistrates of these Courts would be exercised if no limitation were imposed. The Bench in Ireland was composed chiefly of landlords and their supporters, and he asked what chance had a peasant before such men of showing that he ought not to be bound to be of good behaviour. It would be seen, from a report in The Freeman's Journal, how the County Court Judge in Kerry disregarded the jurors of the Court and attempted to use his powers arbitrarily. If Judges acted in this way, how could they expect the rank and file of the magistrates to act differently? He might also point out that persons under the head of "nobility" were exempted from being bound in recognizances, so that magistrates would have no power to deal with a noble rack-renter or a noble ruffian, no matter how such a member of the nobility might oppress or abuse the people. If the Government had not come to the conclusion that they would deal with this matter in the manner of the right hon. Gentleman, who had popped into the House and then popped out of it, they ought to be prepared to give some reasons—if they had any—for not accepting so reasonable a clause.

said, he thought it was scandalous that during the discussion on a Bill of that character not one single Member of the Government thought it right to stay in his place to listen to the arguments which might be advanced in support of any of the Amendments.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

, resuming, said, he supposed the next step would be for the Government to move the closure—

The hon. Member must proceed to discuss the clauses.

I am doing so, Sir.

The hon. Member is not doing so.

, continuing, said, that he had commented on the absence of any Member of the Government from the House, but he would then deal with the clause under consideration. He maintained that experience showed that the Government officials would bring against innocent persons flimsy charges which they would never have the courage to take into open Court, knowing that they had not a leg to stand upon; and yet the accused persons might not only have those charges kept hanging over their heads for years, but might be held all that time under a rule of bail to be of good behaviour, although the trial never came off. In Ireland, he argued, that rule of bail was used not to prevent a breach of the peace that was really apprehended, but to prevent the due exercise of the political rights which belonged to every citizen. In one district of the County of Kerry there were very numerous cases in which the magistrates called on members of the National League to show cause why they should not be bound over to be of good behaviour, and the result was that those men were afraid to exercise their ordinary right of attending public meetings or joining legitimate combinations, because the heavy recognizances which they and their sureties had entered into would be estreated if they did so. The object of the magistrates in those cases was to deter the men from taking part in Constitutional agitation; and the natural effect of those arbitrary proceedings was to drive the people into secret organizations and unconstitutional action.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 103; Noes 158: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 272.)

, in rising to move the following new clause:—

(Certain offences to be felonies.)

"Where an offence under any of the provisions of the Whiteboy Acts is punishable by any term of imprisonment exceeding two years, such offence shall, for the purpose of any trial had pursuant to the provisions of section three or section four of this Act, be deemed to be a felony,"

said, that the offences in question were misdemeanours which, as regarded mode of trial, challenge of jury, and procedure generally, were distinct from felonies. Yet these offences were punished as heavily as felonies, and he contended persons charged with them should have the same safeguards as persons accused of felony. The punishments, for example, under the Whiteboy Acts were most severe, even for offences of a comparatively trivial character. Then the taking of an unlawful oath, printing, writing, or publishing notices for an unlawful assembly, and other relatively small offences, were punishable with not less than five and not more than seven years' penal servitude, while graver crimes, such as attacking dwelling-houses and rioting, were visited with penal servi- tude for life. Under the law as it stood, if a prisoner were tried for one of these grave offences, he had only the right to six challenges; whereas if he were charged with a felony, for which the punishment would be much less, he would have twenty challenges. He considered that this was a disadvantage against a prisoner which ought to be removed. The draftsman of the Bill, with malignant ingenuity, had shut out prisoners charged with Whiteboy offences under the Act from whatever rights they would have had under the ordinary law if charged with a felony, such, for instance, as the right of challenging jurors.

New Clause (Certain offences to be felonies,) — ( Mr. Maurice Healy, )— brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

said, all allusions to Whiteboy offences had disappeared from the Bill as it now stood before the House. When the Bill was first introduced Whiteboy offences were made cases of summary jurisdiction punishable with six months' imprisonment; but the clauses were dropped, and accordingly this Amendment was one which had no reference whatever to a single line of the Bill before the House. For that reason alone it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. He was glad the hon. Member admitted the grave character of many of the Whiteboy offences, as hon. Members opposite, even those above the Gangway, had spoken as if they were all of a trivial character. The effect of the Amendment would be to make the administration of these Acts impossible. The first Whiteboy Act was passed in 1775–6, and the second of these Acts was supported by so good a patriot as Mr. Grattan. He did not know whether any Gentleman opposite had ever been present at a Moonlighter's trial. It often happened that a dozen Moonlighters were caught red-handed, and yet the invariable alibi was sworn to by many witnesses. If in such cases the accused had separate challenges trials would never be finished. Accused persons in England had no right of challenge at all. Then, by expressly limiting the clause to Sections 3 and 4, the hon. Member would produce the absurdity of giving prisoners in a proclaimed district a larger right of challenge than those in an adjoining county would have where there was no Proclamation.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was wanting in respect to the Chair in saying that the Amendment had no reference whatever to a line of the existing Bill, for he should know that the Chairman would would not have allowed any irrelevant Amendment to be moved. The hon. and learned Gentleman, too, appeared to have forgotten the terms of his own Bill when he said all allusion to the Whiteboy Code had been dropped from the Bill. Under the 7th clause it lay in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to declare any assembly of the members of any association as illegal, and an unlawful assembly was illegal under the Whiteboy Act. The Irish Members had never denied that many of the Whiteboy offences were of a very serious character. It was true that the Whiteboy Code was passed by an Irish Parliament, but it was passed only as a temporary measure; and the hon. and learned Gentleman might have gone on to say that one of the first acts of the United Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland—the Parliament of equal rights and privileges—was to make this infamous Code, with all its imperfections, a permanent Code. The Criminal Code introduced by a Conservative Government in 1879 contrasted very favourably in the justice of its provisions to accused persons with the Bill before the House.

supported the Amendment. It would be possible, under the provisions of the Whiteboy Acts, in conjunction with the provisions of this Bill, to put into the dock a large batch of men, and, by treating them collectively, to restrict their right of challenge to six cases. While a person charged with a misdemeanour had only six challenges in the empanuelling of a jury, he would have 20 peremptory challenges if charged with a felony, with which he could be charged under the 3rd and 4th clauses; and it was a most cruel thing to the prisoner to describe as a misdemeanour what was really a felony, and what was punished as a felony, and thereby deprive the unfortunate man of his rights to challenge his bitterest enemy from going into the witness box. This was manifestly unfair, and the refusal of the Government to accept the safeguard which was now proposed showed conclusively that their object in passing this measure was, not the investigation of truth, but the annihilation of political opponents.

said, that every possible precaution ought to be taken to insure the fair trial of cases. One obvious and most important precaution was to give to prisoners an effective right of challenge.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 105; Noes 141: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 273.)

, in rising to move the insertion, after Clause 11, of the following Clause:—

(Cumulative sentences prohibited.)

"No court of summary jurisdiction acting under the provisions of this Act shall award more sentences than one, in respect of the same matter or transaction."

said, that his object was to prevent cumulative sentences. Before magistrates in Ireland one offence was often ingeniously divided and thus given a dual character. One case had come under his notice in which a man was in this manner deprived of his right of appeal. Had the offence with which he was charged been treated as one offence, the punishment must have been imprisonment for more than a month, and the prisoner, consequently, would have had a right to appeal. In order to deprive him of that right, and at the same time to inflict a heavy punishment, the magistrates split up his one offence into six offences, for every one of which they awarded him a month's imprisoment.

Clause (Cumulative sentences prohibited,)—( Mr. Chance, )— brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

said, that the English Jurisdiction Act of 1879 did not cover the proposal made by the hon. Member. An English Court of Summary Jurisdiction had the power of imposing cumulative sentences in respect of offences, but limiting the punishment to assaults committed on different persons on the same occasion. It would, in these circumstances, be improper for the Government to accept the clause. They could not agree to attach a stigma to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in Ireland in respect of cases arising under the Bill, when other cases were not limited by such a condition as the hon. Member sought to impose in other parts of Ireland. It would, besides, be extremely difficult to define what was covered by the term "the same transaction."

said, the "same transaction" under this Act might mean five different offences, and for each of these offences a punishment of six months' imprisonment might be awarded. The Amendment was a reasonable and necessary one, unless the Government were anxious to get rid of the protection given by the Common Law— Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et easdem causa.

said, he had been professionally engaged in County Cork in defending a young man who, when the parish priest had been removed in custody and a concourse of people assembled, advised the people to go peaceably home. That young man was charged with being a member of a riotous and disorderly mob. Six prosecutions were instituted against him by six different policemen, and Captain Plunkett dealt with each case summarily, and gave a sentence of a month in each case, making six months in all. If Her Majesty's Government refused to accept this clause, it would only show that they intended to make this measure a whip of scorpions with which to lash the people of Ireland.

said, it was unfair for the Government to meet the attempts of the Irish Members to amend the Bill by quoting the English law. There was no analogy. This Bill dealt not with ordinary but with extraordinary law. It was to be administered by retired military officers, who knew nothing about law; and new offences were created which required careful limitation. Supposing a man was arrested for opposing the police, the magistrate might say he had assaulted five policemen, and give him six months for each assault. Why should not the whole affair be considered as one transaction?

said, the Solicitor General had quoted the English Act with approval; would he have any objection to accept the clause in the words of the English Act? In his (Mr. M. J. Kenny's) opinion, some such safeguard as was now proposed was required in the case of so stringent a law, which was to be administered by a prejudiced body of men like the Stipendiary Magistrates.

said, that when the English Act was before the House in 1879, Mr. Cross, now Viscount Cross, on the part of the Tory Government, pledged himself that a similar Act would be introduced for Ireland. That pledge had not yet been kept, and now, when they sought to introduce a clause based upon that Act, it was rejected. He contended that the magistrates would be likely to deal with assaults as separate offences, though they really formed part of the same transaction. Boycotting was an offence, and conspiracy to Boycott was also an offence, and so it would happen that for the same act a man might be tried on a charge of conspiracy to Boycott, and on a charge of Boycotting; and, instead of getting one sentence of six months' imprisonment, he might get two such sentences.

said, it was a monstrous thing that the Government would neither accept this Amendment nor explain their reasons for refusing to do so. The arguments of his hon. Friend (Mr. M. Healy) were unanswerable. Events in Ireland during the last few years showed the necessity there was for some such clause as this. They were entitled to some explanation from the Government in case they refused to accept it. What was the use of wasting the time of the House of Commons in this manner? Let the Government apply the closure if they liked, and bring the whole thing to an end to-night or at the present moment. Every provision and clause of this Bill had been deliberately decided upon without the smallest reference to their merits on one side or the other. Everything that went to intensify the measure would be listened to, and anything that went to modify it would not be listened to.

, in supporting the Motion, pointed out that in the present Bill the Summary Jurisdiction Courts were usurping the functions of both Judge and jury, and that was what they objected to. All that was desired by the Amendment was to afford some provision which would have the effect of preventing magistrates from in- flicting punishment three or four times over for what was practically the same offence. He could not see why the Government should object to the proposal, because if the offence was one that deserved more punishment than the six months' hard labour a magistrate could inflict, then the Government could proceed by way of indictment.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 94; Noes 109: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 274.)

, in rising to insert the following Clause, after Clause 9:—

(Crown officials not to act as interpreters.)

"Where on the trial of any accused person had pursuant to any of the provisions of this Act, it is necessary to employ an interpreter for any purpose, no policeman or other Crown official shall be employed to act in that capacity,"

said, he would remind the Government that they already admitted the principle of the clause when they accepted an Amendment of his to the 1st clause, excluding policemen from acting as interpreters under the clause. He thought it was desirable to have a general Proviso inserted on the subject.

New Clause (Crown officials not to act as interpreters,)—( Mr. Maurice Healy, ) brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

said, he might point out the difficulty interpreters had in reproducing the evidence of Irish-speaking witnesses, who were generally very voluble, in a concise and at the same time sufficiently full form. Amongst policemen he thought the number who knew Irish, and would, therefore, be obliged to act as interpreters, were very few.

A great many.

said, he was not aware that that was so. The Amendment provided that in a case where there was a special jury or a change of venue no policeman or Crown official should be employed as interpreter. That carried the suggestion that Crown officials and policemen were likely to be untrustworthy interpreters. He would point out that the inquiry would be held in public Court, where persons would have the opportunity of checking the interpretations given; and of all men policemen or other persons paid by the Crown would be the least likely to give a false interpretation of the evidence. It would be a dangerous thing for a policeman to give a dishonest interpretation, as it would ruin him for life; and, besides, there would be reporters in Court who would take the evidence.

said, the witness would give his evidence in Irish, and he never yet heard of a shorthand writer who was able to take a shorthand note of the Irish language.

admitted that he never heard of such a case; but they could always assume that the members of the National League would have somebody in Court acquainted with the Irish language who would be able to check the interpretation given. The Irish Members assumed that the Crown would employ an interpreter to misinterpret, but such would not be the case. The difficulties which had been pointed out were inseparable from interpretation in every case, and in the Irish language particularly, especially where the witness was an old woman who would be very voluble, He could not accept the Amendment.

said, the Government had granted what was asked for by the Irish Members in the case of secret inquiries, but they would not extend it to public inquiries, although there was the same necessity. Take the case of the City of Dublin, where a great number of trials would be held. There would be nobody present who would understand the Irish language, and consequently no check on the interpreter, the prisoner having to entrust his case to the very men who were his prosecutors. In a recent trial in the West of Ireland, conducted by Mr. Peter O'Brien, who was going to be one of the Law Officers of the Government, a technical difficulty arose about the proof of the publication of a newspaper, the editor of which was being prosecuted. He was informed on the best authority that Mr. Peter O'Brien said to the Crown Prosecutor of Sligo—"Get a constable to swear that, and if he does not I will report you to the Attorney General." Innumerable instances could be brought forward on the part of Mr. Peter O'Brien, George Bolton, and other men, whose conduct in trials had been most disgraceful; and was it reasonable, with such examples before them, to take an Irish-speaking witness to Dublin and compel him to give his evidence before what would be to all intents and purposes a secret inquiry, and then to say that those who interpreted the evidence should be policemen or salaried officials, subject to immediate dismissal if they did not please the Government. A constable would be able to misinterpret the evidence without anyone being the wiser, and certainly a constable who hoped to be promoted would endeavour to please the Government.

said, he might instance the Maamtrasna prosecutions as cases in which the witnesses could only speak Irish, whilst the only interpreter who was produced was a policeman. Was it not reasonable that the interpreter who was employed should be a man who was absolutely above suspicion? The truth was the Irish Members did not trust the Government at all, and the sooner the Solicitor General for Ireland understood that the better. They believed that there was nothing too mean, nothing too despicable, for the Government to do in order to gain a point under certain circumstances.

Order, order! The hon. Member is not justified in using that language in this House. I must ask him to withdraw it.

Quite so. I was—

The hon. Member must withdraw his expression at once.

said, he begged pardon. He was going to withdraw it, and he did withdraw it. He had wished to convey that in a particular instance scarcely a policeman might be above suspicion. The people who would be benefited by that clause were poor people who only spoke Irish, and who brought forward their witnesses, who could only speak Irish, to defend them in a matter, perhaps, of life and death; and if those poor people thought it would be better for them to have an independent interpreter common humanity should grant them that slight concession.

said, he would feel more confidence in the value of the repeated assurances given by the Government that every Amendment, from whatever quarter of the House it might come, was received by the Government with equal consideration if what seemed to him a perfectly reasonable Amendment like the present were met with more openness of mind than the present Amendment had met. It seemed to him, from what he had heard in debate that afternoon, that it was an important thing, where an interpeter was necessary, that the interpreter should be an absolutely impartial person. His view on that point was very much strengthened by what the Solicitor General for Ireland himself now stated—namely, that owing to the volubility of Irish witnesses when speaking in their own language, and owing to the peculiar force of the language they sometimes adopted, there was considerable difficulty in justly rendering the meaning that these witnesses wished to convey. It was impossible almost to interpret word foword, and consequently the Court must have something like a paraphrase, and possibly some misrepresentation of what the witness really meant to say. If that was the case, it was absolutely necessary that the interpreter employed should be a man whose impartiality was above suspicion. He did not profess any knowledge of the police in Ireland, but he could say, undoubtedly, that he had not absolute confidence in the evidence given by policemen in this country. They knew that in nine cases out of ten policemen as witnesses did make themselves partizans. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he did not think there were many Gentlemen in the House who knew anything about the subject who would doubt what he said. He was not speaking against the character of the men, but they did, undoubtedly, feel themselves interested in obtaining a conviction. They felt it part of their duty to endeavour to obtain a conviction, and the result was that their evidence was not so unbiassed as the evidence of ordinary witnesses. Assuming that the same rule applied to Ireland, it did not seem to him reasonable that policemen who might be keenly interested in the result should be employed as interpreters. The Amendment involved no reflection upon the Govern- ment. According to every principle which governed criminal trials and Criminal Law in this country it was the duty of the House in this matter to see that no unfair power was placed in the hands of the prosecution.

said, he regretted that the Government did not see their way to adopt the provision contained in the clause. He asked whether the Solicitor General for Ireland had considered the moral effect upon an Irish-speaking witness, say from Connaught, giving his evidence in Court, if he was to have that evidence filtered through a policeman whom he had, perhaps, regarded with anything but respect or confidence all through life? And, even assuming that the policeman wished to translate faithfully what was said, the witness and the policeman might come from different parts of the country, where not only was the Irish language pronounced very differently, but the words used had a different signification. It would vitiate the ends of justice if a policeman was permitted to act as interpreter. Only a few days ago one of the London magistrates, Mr. Montagu Williams, said he would not convict on the unsupported evidence of a policeman. He hoped that even now the Solicitor General for Ireland would be able to accept the Amendment, and so procure a greater reliance on the part of the Irish people in the administration of justice.

observed that there was a system among the police in Ireland of awarding good conduct marks and money prizes, amounting in some cases to £20, for obtaining convictions. That undoubtedly made the police interested witnesses, who, under the old Common Law, could not be examined at all.

denied that there was any foundation for the statement that the police in either England or Ireland were paid for obtaining convictions. The ordinary practice which prevailed in England and Ireland was that if a case had been properly conducted and properly prepared the conduct of the police engaged in it was marked with a good mark quite independent of the success or failure to obtain conviction. There was not the slightest foundation for the statement that the payment of the police depended on a conviction. However, the matter had nothing whatever to do with the Amendment before the House.

It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.