said, he wished to have an assurance in regard to the Bill. Various remonstrances against it had reached him from Cork, and among those who complained were the Corporation of Cork and the Cork Harbour Commissioners, both of which Bodies had petitioned against the Bill. He wished to know, therefore, whether, before the Bill was considered and ordered to be read a third time, they were to receive some assurance from the hon. Members in charge of it that the Petitions to which he referred would receive due consideration.

said, the Question before the House was "that the Bill be ordered to be read the third time."

said, he wished to point out that the Bill dealt with very important matters.

said, that if the Bill was opposed it must go over until to-morrow.

said, he had no special objection to urge against the Bill; and if the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) would give him a satisfactory assurance that the Canal dealt with by the Bill would hereafter be dealt with in a proper manner, and that they would not lend any more money to the undertaking, his opposition to the measure would be very much removed. His special opposition rose from the fact that he had reason to believe the Government might be tempted to lend money to the Company who were promoting the Bill. He had an inherent horror of the lending of money by the English Government to such an undertaking, and he thought the experience which had been gained in regard to such loans in the past was by no means encouraging. In the case of one of these undertakings, which passed through the Northern part of Ireland, it had never yet paid interest upon the borrowed money. In another case, which involved a scheme of reclamation, a Government had lent to those who were engaged in carrying out the scheme more than the value of the property, even if the scheme had been successful. He was, therefore, desirous in this case that the Government should give an assurance that they would make no further advances to this undertaking, and in that case he would not oppose the Bill. He was afraid that, although tile Secretary to the Treasury might resist further applications, yet in the end he might be tempted to lend the money. The promoters professed to offer a security; but their security would be entirely at the mercy of the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland. Certainly, if he were director of that railway, he should use all his efforts to make it impossible for the Canal to be worked in competition, seeing the amount of mischief it was calculated to do the railway without any corresponding benefit. He might further remark that, if this were a bonâ fide scheme, there would not be the slightest occasion to go to the Government in order to borrow money, for the reason that the Chairman of the Company was a man of large means and the head of a successful stock broking firm. His clients would be quite ready to lend the money, and if their security were offered for any loan that was required there were plenty of people belonging to stock broking firms who would advance the money. Those persons, however, thought it more satisfactory to deal with the Government, because the Government were not likely to enforce payment of interest. He had not only great fear that the Government might be tempted to lend money at once; but he had, however, a further fear that if a commencement were made in the way of lending money, the first loan would not be the last. What would occur would be this—the money borrowed in the first instance would be spent, and then a fresh application for another loan would be made. It was alleged that it was desirable to keep up a certain amount of competition by means of this Canal with the Great Northern Railway Company; but, if that were so, how did it happen that while the Canal was in operation, even before the railway was made, other people were able to compete with it satisfactorily? For instance, Mr. John Quinn, a successful carrier, found himself in a position to make a good business by conveying goods to and from Dungannon in competition with the Canal. Therefore, it was difficult to adduce any argument in favour of the Bill. There was another matter which only came to his knowledge a short time ago. It appeared that there was certain property now held under lease from the Government which it was proposed to transfer into a new Company, so that the tenants, instead of being under a landlord like the British Government, might find themselves dealt with in a harsh and arbitrary manner. He thought such a transference would inflict a very great hardship upon those unfortunate persons who held terminable leases which expired in 13 years. In the first instance, they had obtained the property at a very moderate rent, on the condition of paying a small fine on the renewal of the lease. If, instead of being under the British Government, they were compelled to deal with a Company which was trading for a profit, they would run the risk of having their entire property confiscated. In one case, the tenants of John Stevenson and Company paid a rent of £10, and professed to have laid out £6,000 upon the property; another tenant paid £10, and professed to have laid out £5,000. The property brought in a total revenue of £50 14s. a-year, and the tenants professed to have spent upon it no less than £30,000. It would be hard for them to find that their property was confiscated, and it must be remembered that these were not agricultural holdings that would come under the provisions of the Land Act. On the contrary, when the leases expired the tenants would be liable to be called upon to pay an unreasonable rent, or to find themselves evicted. Under those circumstances, and seeing that the Bill was one which was calculated to give rise to a considerable amount of discussion, he thought it would be better that it should be postponed until after Whitsuntide, when there would be more time to consider its provisions. He would, therefore, move that the debate be now adjourned.

said, he had had some expectation that when the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James P. Corry) rose, not from his usual place, but from a responsible seat on the Government Bench, to move the second reading of the Bill, he would have said something in support of it. As the hon. Baronet had not done so, his (Mr. Healy's) hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had felt himself compelled to offer some reasons why the discussion should be deferred until a later date. Nobody could know better than Mr. Deputy Speaker how important this question was, and what an amount of discussion it might give rise to. This question of the Ulster Canal had for some years excited great attention, and it was altogether impossible that adequate discussion should take place upon it that day, for this reason—that Irish Business had been put upon the Paper. Most important matters were down for consideration, and it was not to be expected that the House would address itself to a calm consideration of the present Bill. He had given Notice on Friday to the First Lord of the Treasury sury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that the Bill could not be properly discussed that day; and he would now appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether it was not desirable to postpone it for a few days? He would give his reasons for making that suggestion. The Bill itself was drawn on the principle of the Bills which had preceded it, all of which had been brought in by the Government. It was a Private Bill, not brought in by the Government on their responsibility. He did not complain of the course pursued by the promoters in endeavouring to obviate discussion in that House by bringing forward the Bill as a private measure; but he did think it an unreasonable course that the Government, who were the immediate parties concerned, and who were really engaged in getting rid of their own property by means of a Private Bill, should not themselves have taken the action implied in the answer which was given by the First Lord of the Treasury to the Question addressed to him on Friday, and have asked the hon. Member for Mid Armagh to postpone the Bill, in order to see whether a short postponement might not have the effect of getting rid of all opposition. He knew that there was considerable anxiety in North Armagh for the passing of the measure, and he had received telegrams requesting him to support it. He was quite ready to do so, if he found that it was possible; but, in the first place, he was anxious to see whether the Government would not make such a promise as would insure the withdrawal of all further opposition, and would allow the Bill to pass with all reasonable speed. But, before withdrawing the opposition, hon. Members should be allowed an opportunity of expressing their views to the Secretary to the Treasury. They had not yet had that opportunity, and he would suggest that a joint deputation consisting of the promoters of the Bill, such as the hon. Baronet (Sir James Corry) and some others, together with some of the opponents of the measure, like his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan, and persons like himself (Mr. Healy), whose opposition was of a very modified character, should wait upon the Secretary to the Treasury and make representations which would be the means of enabling them to arrive at an agreement that would get rid of all opposition. He would, therefore, support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, so that the opponents might have an opportunity of placing their views before the Government better than they could possibly have that day. If that step were not taken, of course the opponents would be obliged to enter into a debate upon the merits of the Bill. He himself should strongly deprecate any hostile demonstration against the measure at the present moment; and he had a strong hope that if the Bill were postponed until a later period, all the opposition now raised against it would disappear. If he were in Order upon the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, he would suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury that he should put into the Bill certain clauses that would have the effect of entirely modifying the objections now entertained to it. For instance, an assurance ought to be given that if the purchasing Company should be enabled to turn the Canal to useful purpose, their rights would be transferred to the County Boards of Armagh, Derry, Monaghan, Antrim, and Tyrone, should such Boards be constituted in the future. In that way, he thought, they would get rid of the opposition which his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan felt disposed to offer to the Bill. Therefore, apart from the consideration whether to-day was a fitting day for the consideration of the measure, he thought the Government might see their way to a compromise, with the view of putting some provisions in the Bill which would have the effect of getting rid of all the difficulty. He, therefore, ventured to support the Motion of his hon. Friend. He certainly thought that the Great Northern Railway Company should never, by any possibility, be allowed to come into possession of this Canal; but the Bill, as it stood, gave no guarantee upon that point. He felt surprised that the Government had not themselves proposed the postponement of the Motion for the second reading. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to concur in the adjournment of the debate, so that a friendly conference might take place between the Irish Members, seeing that this was a Bill upon which Irish opinion should essentially prevail—whether it was Conservative or Home Rule.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not persist in his opposition to the Bill; and he would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), who had made an appeal to him, that the passing of the Motion for the second reading of the Bill would not prevent any arrangements from being made which it might be necessary to make. He could assure the hon. and learned Member that personally he should be glad at any time to receive any communications or representations which either he or his Friends desired to make in reference to the amendment of the Bill. Hon. Members must be aware that the Bill had been before the House for a long time—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: Not this Bill.]—well, a Bill for the same purpose had been before the House on more than one occasion, and all the present measure did was to give the Lagan Navigation Company power to acquire the Canal. No terms were as yet fixed in the Bill, and therefore it was entirely open to hon. Members opposite and their Friends to make any reference to the Treasury which they thought desirable. He, therefore, hoped that the Motion for the Adjournment would be withdrawn, seeing that the second reading of the Bill would not prevent proper precautions being taken to secure that the interests of the Treasury and the interests of the district should be duly considered, and also to secure that provisions should be introduced into the Bill to make it impossible for the Canal to be acquired by the Great Northern Railway Company. He thought that all those questions might be met without any difficulty after the Bill had been read a second time.

said, he also ought to have suggested that if the County Board system were established in Ireland, the Canal should be transferred to that Body.

said, he was not in a position to give an answer upon that point, as the question, which was raised now for the first time, was a somewhat important question. The proposal was that the Government should make terms or impose conditions in the event of a certain thing taking place. It was on the supposition of a County Authority being established that it was suggested by the hon. and learned Member that that County Authority should take over the Canal. No doubt, at the proper time, that question would be considered. He would only point out that the people of the district had had an opportunity of making known their wishes, but they had not signified any opposition to the Bill. He might say, in answer to the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who was good enough to inform him the other day that there had been a quantity of land let on lease by the Board of Works, that he had made inquiry upon that matter, and was told that there were some tenants in that position; but although there were a considerable number of tenancies the rental value was only £40 a-year. Some of the tenants held very long leases, and the Bill did not, in any way, affect the position of their holdings under the leases, and, of course, the leases would hold good, whatever arrangement might be made; certainly it would be the duty of the Treasury or the Commissioners of the Board of Works, who would have to make the conditions under which the Canal Company would acquire the property, to take good care, as far as was necessary, that those tenants were left in full possession of their rights. He trusted, therefore, as there was really no substantial opposition to the Bill, that the second reading would be taken at once, so that the present opportunity might not be lost for making progress with the measure. In the meantime, he would undertake that those points which had been very properly raised by hon. Members opposite should receive full consideration.

said, that, as the Representative of a county which was vitally interested in the Bill, he should like to say a word or two in regard to its provisions.

The Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate, and the debate ought to be confined to that Question.

said, he only rose for the purpose of expressing a hope that the debate would not be adjourned. He quite agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) that all the points which had been brought forward by hon. Members below the Gangway could be considered quite as well at a later stage of the Bill as now. As that was to be a night devoted to Irish Business, he hoped that hon. Members below the Gangway would allow the Bill to be taken at once, so that they might be able to proceed to more important Business.

said, he thought the reason which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. T. W. Russell) had given—namely, that that was to be an Irish night, ought to be a reason for postponing the second reading of the Bill. The Bill, as it stood at present, contained provisions which were of an eminently contentious character. It was quite evident that sufficient time could not be devoted to it that day, the more especially as the merits of the Bill could not be discussed on the question of adjournment. That being so, and having regard to the fact that two Bills of much interest to Ireland, one of which involved the payment of a salary to the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, were upon the Paper, he hoped the Motion for the postponement of the debate would be assented to. He certainly thought that the reasons which the Secretary to the Treasury had given for opposing that Motion were somewhat inconclusive. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman had dealt very fairly with the objections which had been raised, and he had intimated that considerable concessions would be made. He had, however, understood that all matters could be considered at a later stage, and there was no reason why the second reading should not be taken that day. He (Mr. M. Healy) would point out that that would not be the case; because, if the promoters were placed in the position of having got this stage of their measure, they would be much less disposed to consider any objections that might be raised to the scheme, or any point that might be submitted to them, than they would be if the House had not assented to the second reading. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had not questioned the fact that as regarded many of the matters which had been raised—for instance, the position of the leaseholders, the ultimate disposition of the property, the control of the County Boards in the event of their being established, and others matters—were matters which must be carefully considered. It was most desirable that an agreement should be come to upon those points, and, if so, there would be a great deal more prospect of arriving at such an agreement and compromise if the Bill were not read a second time. He did not propose to discuss the merits of the Bill, nor did he desire to defeat the Bill. On the contrary, he was disposed to facilitate its passing into law, if that could be done consistently with proper attention being paid to the various interests involved. For his own part, he thought that it was an unreasonable thing to press the second reading upon the House that day.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. M. Healy) said that there were highly contentious matters involved in the Bill; whereas the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) had pointed out that the Bill was one upon which all sections of the Irish Representatives ought to agree.

said, his point was, that in that part of the House, as far as he could see, there was a disposition to come to an agreement, if possible, on the subject, although there were contentious matters involved.

said, he had listened to the various reasons which had been urged against the Bill; but the only serious objection was that which had been made by the hon. Member for West Cavan, who protested, as far as he could see, to the money of the State being advanced upon what he regarded as indifferent security. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] For his own part, he was always glad when the State was prepared to advance money to any undertaking that was calculated to develop the resources of Ireland and give employment to its people. So far from its being an objectionable Bill, he would point out that the measure was one which dealt with one of the few questions that were of the most vital importance to the North of Ireland.

The hon. and gallant Member must confine himself to the Question of adjournment.

said, he had understood that the argument in favour of adjournment was that the Bill contained contentious matter. He would simply venture to submit that, knowing a good deal about the Bill, and about the course which had been pursued in the part of Ireland in which he lived, a part of the country, which had the advantage of being represented, he believed, by the hon. Member for West Cavan, that so far from being contentious all persons who lived in the locality, with the exception of the hon. Member himself, were of opinion that the Bill would be of great advantage to the North of Ireland. He asked the House to concur with the Secretary to the Treasury that all the objections which had been urged against the Bill, and the reasons which had been given for the adjournment of the debate could be met when the Bill got into Committee. So far as he and his Colleagues were concerned, they were quite ready to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite, and so frame the Bill as to bring it in harmony with the wishes of the people of Ireland and the Representatives of Ireland on both sides. He denied that the Bill was in any way contentious, and he thought it could be easily shown that the Bill was really for the improvement of the North of Ireland. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would see that that was one of those rare occasions on which they could all join in supporting a measure which would be for the advantage of a considerable portion of the Irish people. He, therefore, trusted that the hon. Member for West Cavan would withdraw his opposition to the second reading of the Bill, and reserve the consideration of any Amendments he might suggest until the Bill came before the Committee. He could assure the hon. Member that the promoters would be glad to consider any proposals that might be made. The effect of the measure might be imperilled, if the second reading were not taken then.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just addressed the House (Colonel Saunderson) told them that if the second reading were not proceeded with then, the measure itself might be lost for the Session. He would, therefore, point out that the Bill was a Private Bill, and it could be brought on in the House at the commencement of Business at any time the Authorities chose; that there was no serious opposition offered to it; and that, on the contrary, it had met with approbation on all sides of the House. Nevertheless, as one who approved of the principle of the Bill, he joined with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) in supporting the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. They had been promised by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) that when the Bill went into Committee, some of the suggestions which had been made would be accepted; but they were told not to put their trust in princes, and he was inclined, from the performances of some Members of the Government in other matters, not to repose the strictest confidence in the performance of the promises of the Government. For that and other reasons, he would strongly support any Motion that would succeed in extracting from the Ministry some special promise that the principles and suggestions which had been put forward by his hon. and learned Friend would be accepted before the second reading of the Bill was agreed to. He should certainly join with his hon. Friends in opposing the second reading of the Bill, until the House had some better assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury, that the suggestions which had been made to him would be carried out. For that reason, he trusted that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would not insist upon opposing the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.

said, he had understood from the observations of the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) on Friday last, that he would seek an opportunity for conferring with the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry), with a view of seeing whether the measure could not be postponed from that day until a subsequent evening, having regard to the Business upon which the House wished to be engaged that day. He would put it to the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether it would not be proper on the present occasion to accept the proposal for the Adjournment of the Debate, that proposal certainly being in keeping with the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. [Mr. JACKSON said, there was no promise.] If there were not a positive promise, the First Lord of the Treasury said he would consult with the hon. Baronet, and see whether some arrangement might not be made for the despatch of Business which would prevent the present Bill from being put down that day. On his own account he joined in the appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury to consent to the adjournment of the debate, for this reason—the Bill had been introduced for three or four years in succession from the Treasury Bench, and he had consistently opposed the Bill on every occasion. The Bill now before the House was a different Bill, and the provisions contained in it were very different from some of the provisions which were included in past Government Bills. In consideration of the alterations which had been made, he was no longer disposed to oppose the transfer of the Ulster Canal to the new Company. He was bound to admit that, so far, he had not made up his mind to vote either for or against the Bill. That was a most unsatisfactory position to take up on the part of one who had for several years strongly objected to the Government Bills, and he therefore hoped that a little further time would be afforded for consideration.

said, he would appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not to offer further opposition to the second reading of the Bill. They had made their protest against it, and they had received some promise in the nature of a suggestion that the Secretary to the Treasury would undertake, between this and the next stage of the measure, to devote some consideration to the views which had been put forward that day. He would, therefore, simply ask for some information as to what the future course of procedure in regard to the Bill would be. He would suggest that the course to be taken should be similar to that which was taken in the year 1886—namely, that the Bill should be referred to a Committee of Irish Members. He did not know whether that would be possible under the Rules of the House, or whether the Committee of Selection possessed the power of referring it to an Irish Committee or not. As, however, the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Corry) had the matter in hand, he would suggest to him that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the provisions of the Bill, that it should consist of Irish Members only, and that it should include Members from both sides of the House. He believed that such a Committee would be better able to deal with the Bill than any other, and that the consideration it would undergo would have a valuable effect. The Bill involved an entirely new departure in the history of Private Bill legislation. It seemed to him that the Government were handing over to a private Company a sort of damnosa hereditas. Government property to the value of tens of thousands of pounds was proposed to be handed over to a private Company by Her Majesty's Government. He believed there was no instance in the history of Ireland in which the State, finding that it had made a bad investment of the public money, and that it was impossible to make a profit out of it, proposed to hand it over to private individuals. If that was to be the way in which the State cow was to be milked for the Irish people, he entirely repudiated being a party to the transaction. All that he could see in the matter was that the Government had made a bad investment, and that they were now seeking to get rid of their responsibility by handing it over to private individuals. He maintained that if the canal was to be handed over to private individuals, it should be done only with proper safeguards, the first of which was that neither the Great Northern Railway Company, nor any other company, should, under any circumstances, be allowed to get hold of the canal; that it should be vested in some persons who would work it to a profit; and that if the unfortunate Lagan Navigation Company found they could not work it, it should then be handed over to a representative Board, and that the Lagan Navigation Company should not be allowed, having got the property for nothing, to apply to the Irish Courts for a winding-up order, so that the assets of the Company, including themselves, might become assets for the benefit of their creditors. He did not see why that canal property should ever be allowed to become an asset so far as the debts of the Lagan Navigation Company were concerned. On the contrary, it should be preserved intact. He would further suggest, as a third point, that wherever private rights existed, as in the case of the Tyrone Tile Making Company, they should be duly protected. His hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan had made a fourth proposition—namely, that no further sums of money should be lent by the Government. His hon. Friend thought that if money were lent, it would be lent on very bad security. The Government might think that in getting rid of their liabilities for a payment of £1,000 a-year they might be making a good bargain; but he was of opinion that if they were going to give away the money at all, they should give it frankly, and not as a loan; because He could assure them that they would never receive one penny of the money back again, as long as any water continued to flow in the Lagan, which he was advised would not cover a very lengthened period. It was quite evident that the Government had made a bad investment, and it would be just as well that they should treat the matter frankly, and part with the property with a good grace. He certainly trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would give the House an assurance that no more money would be advanced by the Exchequer to that undertaking. Perhaps, if a strong feeling prevailed among Gentlemen who represented the minority of Ulster Members opposite, he might not feel called upon to oppose their wishes; but as the Government were making a new departure, and were proposing to hand over the assets of the State to a private Body, he thought the best course they could follow would be to provide that the provisions of the measure should be considered by a Committee composed entirely of Irish Members.

said, he was prepared to oppose the extraordinary suggestion which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy). That was a private Bill and unopposed, and the question before the House was that it should be read a second time. He apprehended that under those circumstances there was only one course which the House could pursue, and that the Bill must take its ordinary and legal course. It had been suggested that the Government had placed themselves under certain pledges, and that a certain understanding had been come to; but that was no reason why the measure should only be considered by a Committee composed of Irish Members. The Question before the House was, whether the Bill ought to be read a second time or not. He did not think that it was possible for the House to come to any understanding such as that which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford—namely, that the Bill should be referred to a Special Committee of Irish Members. He understood that it could only go before the Chairman of Committees in the usual form, with one Member of the House sitting with him, and he entirely repudiated the suggestion of the second reading being taken on any understanding whatever. Why any hon. Member should object to the ordinary course being taken, he could not for the life of him understand, and he should be glad to hear definitely from the Government what they intended to do. He had understood the Secretary to the Treasury to say that he would endeavour to mediate between the promoters of the Bill and certain persons who might not have a locus standi to oppose it, but with whom it might be desirable to make some arrangement before the Bill received the sanction of Parliament. That was a perfectly fair course, and it might be desirable to insert certain safeguards in the Bill, but he altogether objected to any proposal to take the Bill out of the ordinary course.

said, he was most anxious that the Bill should pass as quickly as possible; but, at the same time, he must join with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) in endeavouring to arrive at some understanding by which, if the Bill did pass, and the canal were handed over to the Lagan Navigation Company, it should not be possible for the Great Northern Railway Company or any other Railway Company to purchase or lease the canal hereafter. He thought that the Secretary to the Treasury should give some sort of assurance to that effect, or otherwise the canal would be of very little use. It was of no use at present, although it might be of great value if it were put in order. If, however, it were put in order at the expense of the State, and then allowed to be purchased by the Great Northern or any other Railway Company, it would be of very little advantage to the North of Ireland. So long as it could be used as a competing line with Northern Railways, it would be of much advantage to the commercial community in securing the lowering of rates and the price of the carriage of provisions and other goods. But if a loop-hole were left by which Railway Companies could purchase the canal, it would be of no use whatever, but would rather be in direct opposition to the interests of the North of Ireland. Representing as he did the commercial interests of that part of the country, he protested, anxious as he was that the Bill should pass, against the canal being handed over to the Lagan Navigation Company for the purpose of selling it. No one could be more anxious than he was, that the measure should pass. He had supported the provisions it contained in various forms, locally and otherwise, for many years, and he was glad that the Bill had now arrived at the stage it had reached in that House, but he thought there ought to be some guarantee before they consented to pass it, that it should be worked in the interests of the people of the North of Ireland. He thought it was not unreasonable to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give an assurance to those who were anxious that the Bill should pass, that it should not be handed over to a Railway Company which up to the present time had saddled the people of the North of Ireland with very high and prohibitive rates. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) had also made another valuable suggestion—namely, that if it could not be worked with advantage it should not be permitted to be sold, or thrown into a bankrupt estate; nor was the suggestion unreasonable that the Committee appointed to consider the provisions of the measure should consist of Irish Members only. He thought it was only fair that Members from the North of Ireland, whose constituents were most interested in the measure, should be selected to consider the Bill. If it were found that it was a measure for the good of the country, it would certainly not be against the interests of the Lagan Navigation Company or the North of Ireland that the Committee should be composed of Irish Members. He therefore approved of the suggestion that the Committee should be an Irish one, and he would further press upon the Government the propriety of giving a guarantee that the canal should never be handed, by lease or otherwise, over to the Great Northern or other Railway Company, but maintained as an independent competing medium.

said, a question had been asked as to the desirability of inserting previsions in the Bill, to take care that in handing over the canal to the Lagan Navigation Company, they should be prevented from transferring the property they acquired to a Railway Company. He regarded that suggestion as a most reasonable one, and he had no hesitation, therefore, in saying, in view of bringing the present discussion to a termination, that he would himself undertake to say that no such provision should be inserted in the Bill, or in the agreement which it would be necessary to make for carrying it into effect. He need hardly point out that in regard to forming a Committee composed of Irish Members only, that was a matter that was not in his power to control. The Bill stood at present as an unopposed Bill, and in the ordinary course would be before the Chairman of Committees. What he had promised the hon. and learned Member for North Longford was, that he would be prepared to accept any information in regard to the measure which he or his Friends were prepared to place before him.

said, it would not be in the power of the Committee of selection to do what the hon. and learned Member for North Longford desired, or to place on the Committee to which the Bill would be sent, any one interested in the matter. If the hon. and learned Gentleman desired something out of the ordinary course, it would be necessary for him to make a Motion to that effect to the House.

said, he wished to ask as a question of Order, whether it would be regular to give Notice that day, that he would move to-morrow that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

The hon. and learned Member can give Notice; but he cannot make such a Motion now.

said, he wished to bring before the House a question which affected the Records of the House. The Deputy Speaker had read out a letter apprising the House that one of its Members— the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—had been sentenced to imprisonment on the following charge—"For having taken part in the Plan of Campaign." He (Mr. T. M. Healy) wished to ask, whether it were possible in case of inaccuracy, or, as he would charge, a deliberate misstatement, or to the legal effect of the conviction, on the hon. Member for East Mayo, it would be in Order to move a Motion on the subject? The practice was to move that such letter be inserted on the Journals of the House; but he proposed to move that as it contained a falsehood such record should be deferred, and that the Clerk of the House should communicate with the Resident Magistrate, and the exact terms of the sentence on Mr. Dillon be communicated to the House. He referred to the informations on which the hon. Member for East Mayo was charged. He was not charged on any summons, but was arrested on April 18 by a District Inspector, and brought before Mr. Kilkelly, R.M., charged with taking part in an illegal assembly and criminal conspiracy to induce certain persons not to pay their rents, and upon that charge only could he have been convicted. The Magistrate invented a charge, which was not a legal charge, with the deliberate object of prejudicing his hon. Friend, and chiefly, it might be, in regard to a recent Papal document. The statement which this Resident Magistrate wrote was as follows:—

said, he wished to call the attention of Mr. Deputy Speaker to the fact that the hon. Member for the Lough-borough Division of Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle) drew the attention of Mr. Speaker to the fact that the Crimes Act last year was described in a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) as a Coercion Act, and the hon. Gentleman asked the ruling of Mr. Speaker as to whether it was right to apply to the Statute the popular instead of the legal title, and Mr. Speaker ruled that that title was out of Order.

Order, order! As far as I am aware, it is not the practice to make a Motion to lay such a communication on the Table of the House. Many communications are made to the Speaker, such as, for instance, those of Election Judges. They are read from the Chair as a matter of Order, and inserted as read from the Chair. They can be inserted in no other fashion. If the hon. Member desires to make on a subsequent day any Motion in respect of this, he will be in Order to do so; but having been read in discharge of a Ministerial duty from the Chair they appear on the Journals as a matter of course.

Then I would ask you, Sir, whether in the meantime, a deliberate statement having been made by me as a Member of this House that this letter must be false on the face of it, whether the Clerk will insert it in the Minutes pending the moving of such a Resolution?

The letter will appear with the authority of the signature appended to it, with the Votes of the day. I have no doubt the statement of the hon. and learned Member will reach the ears of the public in the usual way.

Are we to understand, Sir, that when a communication of this kind has been made to the House, and has been read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and the truth of this communication is challenged on the spot by Members having cognizance of the facts connected with the case, that as a necessity this untruthful statement must forthwith be published as if by Order of the House? I do submit that under these circumstances the matter at once becomes a question of Privilege. If the House, through Mr. Speaker, directs the printing of a false document, I submit that the document in question and the fallacy concerned in the document in question at once become a question of Privilege; and I would ask you, Sir, with reference to the opinion you have just expressed, that it will be within the competence of any Member to move a Resolution with reference to such matter, whether the question of Privilege would not be lost sight of in postponing such a Resolution to a subsequent date, and whether it would not be necessary, in order to preserve the character of Privilege, that immediate action should be taken?

said, Privilege must undoubtedly be defended by prompt action, but he did not think it need be defended by instantaneous action.

said, he would put this possible case. Supposing a person reported to Mr. Speaker that a Member of that House had been convicted, and such a Member had never been convicted at all, and it was notorious, and could be proved by persons in the House, that no such conviction had ever take place, would it then be tolerated that under this authority upon the Journals of the House should be entered a statement that a Member of the House had been convicted of felony, whereas he had not been convicted at all? It was impossible to conceive a grosser insult either to the Member or to the House itself. Then there was another case which might be put. Supposing a Member had been convicted of one offence, it might be a minor offence, and a report was made to the House that he had been convicted of a totally different offence of a higher and graver character, was it to be tolerated that upon the Journals of the House there should be entered a false statement, and that the friends of the Member should have no remedy of vindicating his character and position at once and upon the spot; but that the Clerks at the Table should be the instruments of entering on the Journals of the House what, under the hypothesis he had put, might be the grossest libel on a Member?

The letter has already been read, and, having been read, it must appear on the Journals of the House. No doubt attention may be called to the matter as a point of Privilege, and a Motion may be made to expunge the record.

Then I will call attention to the matter as a gross Breach of Privilege. Last Session Parliament passed the so-called Criminal Law Procedure Amendment Bill, which gives to certain Resident Magistrates of Ireland power to try summarily persons charged with certain offences. These offences are defined by Statute, and the power of trying prisoners is a statutory power, and every statutory power must be strictly within the limits of statutory authority. No one can step outside those statutory powers for any purpose whatever, and the Resident Magistrates are only empowered to try prisoners for offences committed under this Act. By Sub-section 3A they are empowered to convict any person who has committed any of the offences mentioned in the sub-section anywhere in Ireland, and the offenders may be prosecuted in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The 2nd section defines the offences, one of which is taking part in any criminal conspiracy now punishable by law, and the acts which amount to the criminal conspiracy are defined. No Resident Magistrate in Ireland has the power to convict or to deal with any criminal conspiracy except in the direct words of the Statute. Yet exists this fact—a Resident Magistrate "of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant has satisfied himself"—namely, Mr. Thomas Hamilton—sends to this House a communication which is not only a Breach of Privilege, but a gross libel in every sense of the term, and he sends it away hot-footed the moment the conviction has taken place. I beg, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call your attention to the letter which you read to the House in your Ministerial capacity. (See page 139). The sentence of the Court was that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) should be imprisoned for six months without hard labour. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say that that statement in itself is a falsehood. Either the hon. Member for East Mayo was convicted or he was not. If he was convicted, he must have been convicted of an offence within the terms of the section; but this section takes no cognizance of the Plan of Campaign. I myself could not, without having legal evidence before me, and this House could not, determine without legal evidence what the Plan of Campaign is. The Plan of Campaign may be a thing good, bad, or indifferent; but no magistrate is empowered to go outside the Statute. Yet this magistrate, for the purpose of creating a prejudice, debauching public opinion, and misleading this House, has committed a deliberate and wilful falsehood. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the records of this House ought not to be tainted by having placed upon them a corrupt and wilful falsehood of this kind, although it be invented by a man of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied. I maintain that it was invented for a deliberate purpose, and that the only purpose for which this communication was made was to incite prejudice in this House, and to convey a false impression as to what the hon. Member for East Mayo had been convicted of. This House considers it wise and prudent that it should be made acquainted with any offence of which one of its Members has been convicted, and yet here we have a case in which a solemn judicial sentence has been passed upon a Member of this House of six months' imprisonment with hard labour. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, six months without hard labour; but the difference is so slight that I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo will appreciate it. Immediately after the conviction has been made, this magistrate, of whose knowledge of the law the Lord Lieutenant has satisfied himself, sends off a notification to Mr. Speaker that my hon. Friend has been convicted of taking part in the Plan of Campaign. I would ask the House to observe the effect of that statement. If this House had on its records under a process of certiorari a certificate of the conviction of one of its Members, and my hon. Friend, instead of appealing, had applied for a writ of habeas corpus, if the certiorari was found to be bad, there would be no power residing in any of Her Majesty's Courts to detain my hon. Friend; and if it could be shown that my hon. Friend had been convicted by the Resident Magistrate of an offence not sanctioned by the Statute, but an offence which did not exist, and that appeared in the certificate of conviction, my hon. Friend would be entitled to walk out a free man. No magistrate has a right to obtain cognizance on certiorari of a crime that does not exist, and yet the legal knowledge of this Resident Magistrate is such that he has penned a letter which is not only false, but which shows that he does not understand the Statute. I submit that the sending of this document to the House by Mr. Thomas Hamilton is a Breach of Privilege, that we should compel Mr. Hamilton to appear at the Bar and apologize for this libel on a Member of the House, and also for this insult and flagrant deception which he has endeavoured to practice on the House itself. This man has acted deliberately. I do not know whether he penned the letter in conjunction with any of the Law Officers of the Crown, I do not know whether the letter is one which has been drawn up as part of a common form suggested by the Law Officers of the Crown, but, at any rate, I think that the distinct withdrawal of the letter by Mr. Hamilton is absolutely necessary. Further, I am of opinion that the letter should not only be withdrawn, but apologized for, and that the author of time libel should appear at the Bar in person to make such apology. We may gather what the character of the persons is, of whose legal status the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied, when we find one of them writing a document which is not only false in law, but false in fact in every way in which you may view it. What chance would any unfortunate persons have who might be brought before such a Resident Magistrate who has such slight attachment to the forms of law. When, Sir, I heard you read the letter of Mr. Hamilton, I could not help being startled at such a declaration from the hands of a gentleman who has been entrusted with the power of life and death, for a sentence of six months' imprisonment for a man in the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo may very well involve death. As soon as I heard the letter read I proceeded to the Table and obtained a copy of the letter, and I found that it born out, in every respect, the reading of the Chair. That being so, I considered that it was necessary for some hon. Member to take action in the matter in view of requiring in future that the legal form of Procedure under the Crimes Act should be carried out with common decency. I beg to move—

"That it is a Breach of the Privilege of this House to communicate to Mr. Speaker a letter containing an inaccurate and untruthful statement concerning the arrest and conviction of a Member of this House."

I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford that the Motion he has submitted is purely an abstract Resolution, and in order to raise the question of a Breach of Privilege, there ought to be attached to the Resolution some reference to a specific Breach of Privilege.

May I ask if it has not been the practice in most cases of Breach of Privilege to have, in the first case, a general allegation of Breach of Privilege, and then to allow it to be followed up by a specific Motion afterwards.

I will move the Resolution in the following form:—

"That the letter of Mr. Thomas Hamilton, Resident Magistrate, dated the 12th May, addressed to Mr. Speaker, is a Breach of the Privilege of this House, as containing an untruthful statement in regard to the arrest and conviction of a Member of this House."

Will the hon. and learned Member bring up the corrected Resolution?

Certainly.

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if the letter of Mr. Hamilton were read again by the Clerk at the Table, as many hon. Members have not heard it read.

The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has taken occasion from the reading of this letter to make accusations against the magistrate who presided at the trial of the case against the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) of the most serious, and, I may say, of the most unfounded character—accusations which ought not to have been made, and insinuations of motives which I submit ought not to be made in this House upon such grounds as the hon. and learned Member has alleged. The hon. and learned Member has complained that the magistrate, to use his own expression, went on "hot foot" from the trial to write this letter. Now, surely it was the bounden duty of the magistrate, when he had convicted, to lose no time in apprising Mr. Speaker of the fact, and if all the grounds which the hon. and learned Member had for the suggestions he has made are as unfounded as that, I submit to the judgment of the House whether they ought to be made against a magistrate who writes a letter in the simple discharge of his duty. Now, Sir, what is the nature and character of a letter of this kind? It is a notification given to Mr. Speaker of a certain alleged state of facts. If it be the case of the hon. and learned Member that in this instance the hon. Member for East Mayo was convicted of what was not an offence, and for which the Court had no power to convict and sentence him, I need hardly say that the legality of the sentence would depend not on the notice given to the House, but on the record and certificate of conviction. If the certificate of conviction is for a something which is not an offence, and if the hon. Member for East Mayo has been convicted for taking part in a criminal conspiracy, that would appear on the certificate of conviction and will speak for itself. If he has not been so convicted, the hon. Member will have the benefit of it in any proceedings which he may institute. It has, however, been suggested, and I earnestly protest against the suggestion, that because it does not appear from the letter that the hon. Member has been convicted of criminal conspiracy, but of taking part in the Plan of Campaign, that, therefore, the writer was influenced by motives of the basest kind. Whether the letter to Mr. Speaker should be expressed with all the accuracy of the certificate of conviction or not, can any human being doubt what was the meaning and purport of the communication? Is it not the fact that the Court took judicial notice that the Plan of Campaign has been pronounced by the Lord Chief Baron in a recent case to be a criminal conspiracy? The Plan of Campaign is perfectly well understood, and every Court must take judicial notice that it has been pronounced a criminal conspiracy. Can anybody say that the Resident Magistrate, in describing the offence as the Plan of Campaign, when he knew that the Judges of the land had pronounced the Plan of Campaign to be a criminal conspiracy, has been guilty of wilful and deliberate falsehood, because he has not followed the exact language of the certificate of conviction? Whether the magistrate ought to have followed the terms of conviction or not, I will leave to be discussed by hon. Members more experienced in the Forms of this House. But if no offence has been committed, no letter to Mr. Speaker from the magistrate convicting can make it so, and the suggestion which has been made by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford is, I think, not one which will commend itself to the judgment of any fair-minded man on either side of the House.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) has not, I think, touched the real point of this matter. As I understand the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) who brought forward the Motion which the House is now considering, his contention is that by the law of Parliament any magistrate or judicial functionary who proceeds by sentence against any Member of this House is bound by the Rules of Parliament to communicate the cause of his action to the House. I need hardly point out that that can only mean the true cause of the conviction. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland tells us that it is a mere matter of extreme technicality to follow the precise words of the Act of Parliament. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I humbly submit that it is a great deal more than that. It is perfectly true that certain Judges in Ireland have expressed opinions with reference to what is called the Plan of Campaign. But they have been for a great part obiter dicta, and not decisions of the Judges at all. Does the hon. and learned Member opposite mean to say that the House is to accept these obiter dicta pronounced by certain learned Judges in Ireland as applying beyond the particular case in which they were uttered, or to take anything which any removable magistrate chooses to call the Plan of Campaign as necessarily covering a legal offence? I dispute that altogether, and I must say that hon. Members on the other side of the House must not be surprised if we on this side take every legitimate opportunity which may present itself of bringing before the House and the public the action of these magistrates, and the mode in which the law is being administered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite well knows that I never concealed my view of this Act—namely, that it is noxious in its inception, and injurious every day in its operation. So far from serving the purpose for which it was stated to have been introduced—namely, the putting down of real crime as we understand it, it is not being so directed. This is our justification for the Motion—namely, that the Act is being insidiously directed against matters with which it was never intended to deal.

said, he was not astonished that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) should take every possible opportunity of attacking the Act which was passed by Parliament last Session, and the way in which it was being administered by the Irish magistrates. What, however, the House had a right to expect was that the attacks of the hon. and learned Gentleman should be moderately reasonable. The question now before the House was that of a Breach of Privilege; and what was the allegation? It was that one of the magistrates of Ireland, in the fulfilment of his duty, had written to inform the Speaker of that House what he had done, and it was maintained that in doing so he was not to use popular language which would be intelligible to Mr. Speaker, and intelligible to every Member of the House, but that he was to use some technical terms which were to satisfy the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), and, as had been said, to stand the test of a special demurrer. That was the only question the House had to settle. There was no pretence for saying that the certificate of conviction when it came to be examined would not accurately describe the offence.

How do we know that?

The magistrate has written to Mr. Speaker to say that he has convicted the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) under this Act, that he has convicted him for an offence which he describes in popular language as taking part in the Plan of Campaign; and the only question before the House is whether that letter is to be declared by the House to be a Breach of Privilege? Having now said what the real question before the House is, I do not think the matter is further debateable.

I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) if he could inform the House what is the object of communicating this information to the House at all? Does it not indicate that the House desires to know the offence of which the person tried has been convicted, and not some other offence of an imaginary character coined for the political exigencies of the moment, which the magistrate or Judge may assign as having been the offence, but which really has not been the offence at all? Now, Sir, I will assume that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) has made a mistake in supposing that this is not a communication to the House, but a communication to the Speaker only, for it is a communication to Mr. Speaker as a servant and agent of the House, and is for the information and judgment of the House as the highest Court of the Realm. Undoubtedly the House desires to know, if a Member of the House has been convicted, why he has been convicted; and I submit that a mistake and error of this kind, which would not have been committed by one of the humblest Petty Sessions clerks in Ireland, should not be passed over in silence when committed by a magistrate, who has the responsibility of meting out cumulative sentences of hard labour for political offences. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members say "No!" I contend that this magistrate has shown his entire ignorance of all law by writing to the House, and informing us that the hon. Member for East Mayo has been convicted for the offence of taking part in the Plan of Campaign. He is a magistrate who is entitled to inflict cumulative sentences of imprisonment with hard labour for any number of years that he may choose to inflict them. His power is an unlimited power, and, as was very fitly stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), it is absolutely a power of life and death, because we have it on the authority of one of the Irish Judges that a sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour is the severest sentence which can be inflicted by the Criminal Law in Ireland. Now, Sir, here is this Irish Magistrate who has sent to this House an incorrect and inaccurate statement; and who is he? He is a Mr. Hamilton, of whose knowledge of law the Lord Lieutenant—who knows, by the way, a great deal about law—is satisfied, because he has chosen him as one of those magistrates who had a sufficient knowledge of the law to administer the Act. This magistrate is not a barrister; he has never passed a legal examination in his life; and yet in a case of this extreme delicacy, involving the liberty, and perhaps the life, of one of the most important of his political opponents, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is not ashamed to entrust such issues as this to such a man in order to show his utter flippancy and disregard, not only of the decency of the law in Ireland, but of the lives of his political opponents, by entrusting the consideration and decision of such questions as these to a man who has been obliged to admit that he has had no legal education, and never passed even an examination in law. These are the kind of men whom the Go- vernment put over us in Ireland to carry out the notions of the Front Bench as to the administration of law and justice. How can you expect that the Irish people, even if this House chooses to swallow such a letter as this, written as it is in such colloquial phrases—how can you expect the Irish people, after such evidence as this of the utter incapacity of these persons to fulfil judicial functions, to have any regard for your law or your administration?

I should not have joined in this debate had it not been for the way in which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) has chosen to deal with the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) and the late Attorney General. The hon. Gentleman, whose more recent experience in connection with India may possibly have led him to forget some of the extensive experience he had at the English Bar, addressed this as a matter of no importance. Now, I venture to think that it is a matter of much importance both inside the House and out of it. It is a matter of importance inside of this House that we should see that the Privileges of the House are complied with by those who have duties to discharge, and if it is part of the duty of a judicial officer to return to this House an account of the conviction of a Member of this House, surely it is the duty of the House itself to see that the record of conviction is accurately returned. Now, Sir, on the face of this letter, we know that we have no such accurate record of the conviction of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), because we know perfectly well that it returns a conviction for that which is not known as any offence under our statutory law. Then surely the House is entitled to take notice of the matter, and I think the House would best consult its own dignity by communicating to the person who has made this statement to the House, and requiring him to give accurate information to the House of the conviction which has taken place before him. It is almost too much—although the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has drawn a picture which made one's mouth water—to expect to see a Resident Magis- trate standing at the Bar undergoing the process of apology. I am afraid that that is too much to look forward to, but I think we are entitled to have from the Resident Magistrate an accurate account of the conviction which has taken place. So much for the view which I think this House is entitled to take, so far as it is itself concerned. But what will be said outside the House when persons read the letter which contains the record of a conviction for an offence which is not an offence at all as known to our statutory law? They will say this—that the Resident Magistrate in writing, aye, with hot foot, such a letter, showed by the terms he used that he had got the Plan of Campaign on his brain. It was the Plan of Campaign he was thinking about, and it is not what I may say of this judicial officer, but it is what people will say outside the House. In order to protect responsible judicial officers from having reflections of a serious character made upon them outside the House, I think this Resident Magistrate should be required to make an accurate return of the conviction which took place before him.

Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York (Mr. Lockwood) is concerned to know what will be the opinion of people outside the House with regard to this question. I am quite sure that the first thing they will say will be that those inside the House have their feelings remarkably well under control, and that they have been able to get into a terrible passion about a very little matter. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I take the interruption of hon. Gentlemen opposite as a distinct compliment. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has simply described as incorrect and inaccurate a statement which the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has described as a corrupt and wilful falsehood, intended to convey a false idea. I think that is a tolerably warm description of what the hon. Member for Cork has described as incorrect and inaccurate. But what is there incorrect or inaccurate in the statement of the magistrate I venture to say that to his statement neither the term inaccurate or incorrect is applicable. That an hon. Member of this House has been convicted of taking part in a criminal conspiracy there is no doubt. If any one doubts that statement, he must first of all pretend that he does not know what the Plan of Campaign is. It is not denied that the Plan of Campaign has been pronounced by the highest Courts in Ireland to be a criminal conspiracy. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South. Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) said that that was an obiter dictum. Happily for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, his remarks are obiter dicta, and he has made many remarks on this subject that are of that character. The question in the case which was to be decided was whether the Plan of Campaign was a criminal conspiracy or not, and it was decided that it was so. We must therefore shut our eyes very hard if we pretend not to see that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has been convicted of taking part in the Plan of Campaign. We must pretend very much that we do not learn that the hon. Gentleman has been convicted of taking part in a criminal conspiracy from the letter sent by the magistrate to Mr. Speaker. But I do not know that the magistrates are told anywhere to make their reports in the technical language of an indictment. The material part is to know that the hon. Member has been convicted. [Interruption.] If hon. Members have not yet appreciated the point, I will state it again. The material point is to know that the hon. Member for East Mayo has been convicted of an offence against the law, for which he has been sentenced to undergo treatment which will seclude him for a time from this House. No doubt, it is convenient that the House should know whether the offence committed is that of burglary, conspiracy, or larceny, or anything else; but there is no need of such accuracy in the communication of the magistrate to this House, and the hon. and learned Member for North Longford himself well knows that no certiorari lies to this House. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I am glad that my remark has called forth that manifestation. The material point is that a Member of the House is absent, and how long he is likely to be absent. But so far as the language of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford is concerned—namely, that this is a corrupt and wilful falsehood, I say that oven the language of the hon. Member for Cork, which is by comparison a temperate statement, does not represent the case correctly. We are told that the hon. Member has been found guilty of taking part in the Plan of Campaign, and we all know, and have known before, that the Plan of Campaign was the hon. Member's own invention. Everyone knows the law, or is presumed to know it, and if the hon. Member did not know it he has not done his duty by himself as a subject. We are told that the Plan of Campaign is a criminal conspiracy, that he has taken part in it, and therefore that he has taken part in a criminal conspiracy. But we are told something more—namely, what that criminal conspiracy is, and because the magistrate has told us this, we are asked to bring the magistrate to the Bar of the House to apologize for what has been called a libel on a Member of the House. But does not the House know that the hon. Member for East Mayo started the Plan of Campaign; do we not know that he gloried in devoting himself to taking part in it; and is the House to be told that a magistrate has written a libel upon him when he says that he has done what he has been constantly boasting of doing? That, I say, is asking the House to take up a ridiculous position. It is quite true that the magistrate has not written the letter in the words of a legal indictment; but I submit that he has told the House in decent, becoming, and perfectly comprehensible language all that the House need to know, and it is, therefore, an abuse of language to call the letter a libel, or corrupt, or even inaccurate.

Sir, I thought that the comments which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) made upon this letter were the most unfortunate comments that it was possible to make; but when the hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) got up I found out my mistake. I do not think I ever heard a counsel make a case much worse than the hon. and learned Member has done in the case which he was defending. This matter is a very plain one. When a Member of this House is arrested or convicted, notice has to be given of such arrest or conviction. A Member of this House is not to be kept away from it without the House knowing he cause why he is kept away. For that purpose the cause, and the true cause, must be stated in order that the House may know whether there is any justification of the conduct of the tribunal or authority who detains an hon. Member. This was according to the ancient law of Parliament, and in former days the judgment of a Court for Contempt, by which a Member was imprisoned, was not recognized by the House of Commons as a valid ground for his detention, and it was disputed and resisted. I do not mean to say that this law in recent times has not been altered. I put it forward as an illustration. Supposing that the old law was in operation in these days, when a Member was detained, and it was not stated that it was for Contempt, the House would be ousted of its right to know the cause of the detention of the Member. Therefore, it is necessary that the true cause of detention should be stated in order that the House may judge whether or not it should take cognizance of what has been done; and, therefore, to send to Mr. Speaker a letter which does not state any legal cause or cause known to the law on which the House can proceed is, on the face of it, an insult to the House. It is as much as to say—"I have detained the Member, and I will not give you any legal cause whatever for his detention." The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India says—"Oh, it was done out of consideration for your understanding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for fear that if the cause had been stated in the statutory language of the Act of Parliament, you might not have understood it; it was couched in popular language in order to meet the feebleness of your apprehension." This is the only defence we have heard offered by the Government for this act. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India said that the letter should be couched in popular language. I think that advice a little dangerous to those unlearned gentlemen who are called Resident Magistrates; and I feel that a more extraordinary comment on the learning of those gentlemen could not have been given. But I will suggest another form of popular language, which will be perfectly familiar to the House, and perfectly satisfactory, no doubt, to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). Suppose a Resident Magistrate were to write a letter and say—"Mr. Speaker, I have got hold of a Nationalist Member, and I have sent him to prison." That is a very popular way of expressing exactly what is going on in this case. It would be perfectly intelligible even to your intellect, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you would then know exactly what had happened, and the House and the country would also know; while the Resident Magistrate would be spared the trouble of exhibiting his ignorance of the law. In order to save the trouble of writing such a letter, I suggest that there should be a common form lithographed, and that a parcel containing them should be supplied to Resident Magistrates—a dozen or so might be served out, and they might be in this form:—"We have got hold of a number of Nationalist Members; we do not exactly know what we are to try them for, but we have sent them to prison, and I beg to inform you of the fact." Now, that is exactly what has been done in this case, and that is what the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India calls popular language. Hon. Gentlemen on these Benches raise their protest against, what I will call, the unbecoming levity of the hon. Gentleman in adopting this form of defence of the present transaction, which, however, is the only defence that has been offered. There has not been the smallest attempt to offer any serious explanation to the House. I do not impute anything to the Resident Magistrate, except crass ignorance. The Resident Magistrate did not know what it was that Mr. Dillon was sent to prison for; and, therefore, we cannot impute to him any bad motive—[Cries of "Order!"]. He is described here as Mr. Dillon.

It is usual in this House to refer to an "hon. Member."

All I complain of is that the magistrate, in informing the House that he had committed the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) to prison, has not adopted the ordinary form of satisfying the House of Commons that he had sent him to prison for some offence known to the law. It was all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Deptford to say that we knew all about the Plan of Campaign; but it is necessary that the magistrate should state that the hon. Member had committed some offence of a statutory character. But he has not done that, and therefore, not merely with reference to this case alone, but with reference to future cases in which Members of this House may be detained, I think that we ought to take some proceedings to assert that a legal offence should be stated as the cause of imprisonment of a Member of this House.

said, he was desirous of narrowing the discussion to the only question which ought to be brought to the attention of the House—namely, whether a Breach of Privilege had been committed or not. He did not quite share the views enunciated by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling), and he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) that if the House had had such a flippant communication as he had sketched, stating that a Member had been caught and sent to prison, the writer of such a communication would deserve the greatest possible censure of the House. He (Sir Henry James) would ask the House to take into consideration what it had before it, not from outside sources, but from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). The House would agree that if they had had from this Resident Magistrate the most technical statement of the offence that he learnt from the hon. and learned Member for North Longford had been committed, he should have sent to the House a communication that "Mr. Dillon had been convicted of taking part in a certain criminal conspiracy—to wit, the Plan of Campaign."

No, no! According to the report in The Times, informations were sworn by District Inspector M'Donnell, before Mr. Kilkelly, R.M., charging Mr. Dillon with taking part in an unlawful assembly at Tallyallen—that was afterwards departed from—and in a criminal conspiracy to induce certain tenants to refuse to pay their rents.

said, they were asked to find that a Breach of Privilege had been committed on the statement of a newspaper that there had been a conviction for a particular offence. If the letter of the magistrate had stated that Mr. Dillon had been convicted of taking part in "a certain criminal conspiracy—to wit, the Plan of Campaign," there would have been no Breach of Privilege. All that the magistrate had done was to omit the words "a certain criminal conspiracy—to wit." No doubt, looked at from the narrow view of a lawyer, the letter was couched in slipshod language; but persons who were not lawyers would simply say that the result had been stated briefly without reciting the legal means by which it had been arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby did not impute any motive to the magistrate, and only charged him with ignorance; but was an error committed in ignorance to be treated as a Breach of Privilege? He was afraid that he and others had often committed Breaches of Privilege in ignorance. Taking the admission that this gentleman had not intended any insult to the House, and that he had to satisfy the Lord Chancellor of his legal knowledge—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: No; the Lord Lieutenant]—it was scarcely worth the while of the House to consider what penalty should be imposed upon him for a Breach of Privilege committed in ignorance.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) has come to the assistance of the defence of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) in this matter with his usual gallantry. He has stepped into the breach on behalf of the Government, and endeavoured to induce us to dispose of this matter on the ground that there was no intention or apprehension of giving offence to this House. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is right in so pronouncing upon this matter; but I believe that I am quite right when I say that in debates on this question, whether it is a Breach of Privilege or not, we have nothing whatever to do with the intention of the person who has committed it. The intention of the person is a matter for after action. The custom of this House is first to decide whether a Breach of Privilege has been committed or not, and subsequently it is the duty of the House to consider whether it has been innocently committed or not—whether it has been an innocent or a guilty Breach of Privilege, and on this head the House takes what course it may in its wisdom deem right. In considering the conduct of Mr. Hamilton, we have to look at the facts by themselves. I do not want to go into the motives that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) and others think they see in what has taken place. I want to restrain thorn from looking at any motive, or of presumed innocence, there may be associated with the whole matter at this stage. What are the facts with which we have to deal? It appears to be supposed by the hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) that there is nothing to be done in a case of this kind except to certify a certain fact to the House, that the House is minus one of its own Members, and that when they are put in possession of that information as functi officio in the matter, they had nothing to do but to receive it and to record it, and to have nothing whatever to say upon the proceedings that have taken place. I think, Sir, that this is one of the gravest matters in which we can possibly be engaged. I think I see a smile on the face of some of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, but I do not think that I have said anything in my utterance which should have provoked that smile. Sir, there is no question that can come before this House more important than the personal liberty of the Members. If this House is bound to respect the tribunals of this country, then the tribunals of this country are bound to respect this House. When we have had to deal with the Judges of the land in matters of this kind, not one of those Judges failed in the proper discharge of their duty; but we are here dealing with a case where the Judges of a Court have infringed the Privileges of this House, and I want to know, after the smiles I have observed on the Front Government Bench, if the Government does not consider the question raised of the highest Constitutional importance that this House should be made aware of what has happened to one of its Members according to legitimate authority, and whether the powers vested in the magistrates by the law have been properly exercised, and how can the House know that unless the Judge states a legal offence? This, I say, is a matter of the highest Constitutional importance. I do not say that the House ought now to enter into the merits as to whether the magistrates were actuated by right motives or not; but what we have a right to know is, whether the magistrate has acted within the limits of the law. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James), with his boundless ingenuity, has, hypothetically, patched up a form of expression which the magistrate might have used, but which, as he says, the magistrate has not used.

What I said was that the magistrate ought to have used certain words which I stated. What I did say was, that if he had used certain language which I repeated, he would have accurately described what took place before his tribunal.