T objects of that character. One of the most useful Associations in this country, and one which he, in his Office, did all in his power to encourage, was the Prisoners' Aid Society. Who had ever thought that because people aided a prisoner and his family they were encouraging crime? That was the very point the hon. Member had put. No one could form such an idea as that. MR. MOLLOY said, the right hon. meaning of this Act. What objection, THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out ment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved to insert, in page 4, line 1, after "who," the word "knowingly." Amendment agreed to. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he hoped the hon. Member would postpone the Amendment until they came to If the Amendment the 27th clause. were carried the definition of unlawful Associations would be left quite open. MR. LEAMY said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would remember what the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) had said with reference to the Ladies' Land Leaguenamely, that in some cases it had been held that the action of the League If, under amounted to intimidation. this Act, the erection of huts for evicted families would be held to be illegal, the contention of the hon. Member that an Association for the erection of huts would be unlawful could not be disputed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would therefore see the very great necessity there was for a clear and MR. REDMOND moved, in page 4, precise definition. He had no desire to line 2, to leave out "as defined by this prolong the discussion; but he would Act." His object in moving this Amend-point out that it was the duty of the ment was to raise the whole question of unlawful Associations as defined by this Act. Turning to Clause 27 of the Bill, "unlawful association" was defined to be any Association formed for the purpose of carrying on crime. Crime was defined to be any offence against this Act, and amongst the offences against this Act there were some the determination of which was to be left to the discretion of Resident Magistrates. Intimidation was a crime under the Act, and it had been held in some cases that the erection of huts for evicted tenants by the Ladies' Land League was intimidation. He presumed that the Ladies' Land League would be considered an unlawful Association. He did not know Committee to bear in mind what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England last night. The hon. and learned Gentleman said mon Law. ... "In this Bill it was not intended to give a new definition of a crime well known at ComIf they were introducing a new offence, they might be justly required to give a definition; but, as a matter of fact, they were dealing with a well-known offence." The case had been put to the Committee; but his hon. Friend (Mr. Redmond) showed the necessity of giving a precise definition. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had very frequently referred to the ingenuity of Irishmen, and he had said-"If you | His reason for proposing this Amendgive a definition of crime, the people ment was that the membership of very will employ their ingenuity to find a many Associations was formed by payform of crime not defined." The Com- ing a yearly subscription at the beginmittee and the Government ought to be ning of the year. If a person paid a well satisfied if the Irish ingenuity was yearly subscription in January, he would so exercised as to keep the people within be a member of the Association until the law; and the Government ought, the end of the year. Perhaps in March now that they were creating new offences, the Association might be declared to be to tell the people precisely what the unlawful, and the man might resolve offence was, so that the people could to have nothing more to do with it. As, avoid committing it. however, he had paid his subscription in January, he would still be a member of the Association, and he would have no means of disassociating himself from it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say he would consider, between this and Report, whether he could not propose an Amendment havMR. NEWDEGATE begged to asking for its object the protection of men the Home Secretary if permission would be given carte blanche, after the passing of the Act, for the formation of any Associations, however illegal? MR. SEXTON asked if the Bill would be limited to unlawful Associations in actual existence at the time the Act passed into law? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, it was not intended that the clause should be retrospective. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he did not know why the hon. Gentleman should address such a question to him. There was nothing in the Bill to give the hon. Member any such impression as he seemed to possess. MR. REDMOND said, that after what had fallen from the Home Secretary he would withdraw his Amendment, postponing the consideration of this very important question until they arrived at the clause which defined unlawful Associations. He presumed that as they had to meet again at 12 o'clock, there would be no objection to report Pro gress now. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he hoped hon. Members would allow the Committee to finish this clause. He was going to move the omission of the latter lines of Sub-section (d); and if hon. Members would look at the page of Amendments, they would find there were really no important questions raised in the clause. MR. HEALY suggested they should go on until they reached some point of difficulty. MR. GILL desired to move an Amendment to Sub-section (6), which he wished should read thus "Solicits or receives or pays any money for the use of an Association after it has been declared to be unlawful as defined by this Act." Mr. Leamy who had no desire to belong to Associations after they had been declared unlawful, he (Mr. Gill) would not now press his Amendment. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he thought the insertion of the word "knowingly " would meet the case the hon. Gentleman had mentioned. If, on consideration, they found this would not be the case, they would take care the clause should be amended in the direction desired. MR. HEALY moved, in page 4, line 6, after "ticket," leave out "indicating connection with," and insert "showing that the person using same is a member of." The Government had proposed this clause with the intention of using it against secret societies. He presumed that the Government imagined that members of secret societies used some badge, possibly in their hats, to denote they were members of such societies. He feared the Government had made some mistake in introducing this sub-section. What was the meaning of the words "using any badge or ticket?" A man might have a Land League ticket, the Land League was proclaimed, the ticket remained in his house. The police were to have large powers of search, and if they discovered such a ticket they might hold that the person to whom it belonged belonged to an unlawful society. To guard against such a contingency, he moved this Amendment. Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 6, after the word "ticket," to leave out the words "indicating connection Question put, and negatived. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT proposed to leave out the word "knowingly" at the beginning of line 8, inas much as the word had been inserted at the commencement of the clause. Amendment agreed to. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he proposed, in lines 10 and 11, to leave out all the words from the beginning of the line to the end, as those words seemed to be unnecessary, because taking part in the proceedings of any unlawful Association was defined by the Bill. The words proposed to be omitted were these "Or of any meeting for the purpose of promoting the purposes of any such unlawful Association, or any of those purposes." The use of these words seemed to him to be superfluous, and he therefore proposed that they should be struck out of the clause. Amendment proposed, in page 4, lines 10 and 11, to leave out all the words after "thereof to "shall." (Sir William Harcourt.) Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.” MR. SEXTON said, before the clause was agreed to he should like to put a question to Her Majesty's Government. If Sub-section (a) of the clause were carried out in its integrity, the consequence would be that the members of unlawful Associations would die out, and there would be no necessity for the other sub-sections which followed-such, for instance, as soliciting or paying money, using any badge or ticket, and He was at a loss to understand why all this elaborate, complicated, and so on. useless machinery could not be omitted. Would it not be better to omit these sub-sections? MR. PARNELL said, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman might give an undertaking to cut out the subsections mentioned by his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) on the Report. They certainly seemed to be absurd, and would be of no use under any circumstances. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he thought the suggestion was one that was very well worth attention. MR. T. D. SULLIVAN asked whether the Proviso of which he had given Notice for insertion at the end of the clause could not be moved then? THE CHAIRMAN said, the clause would come up afterwards. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he proposed to deal with the matter in the same clause as that which he had already mentioned. the MR. HEALY wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether House might expect the Amendments to be brought forward by the Government to be proposed on the following day; and, if not, if the Government would inform the House when they would be brought up? He had understood from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that they would be brought up as soon as possible. MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not in his place at the present moment; but I may inform the hon. Gentleman that no time will be lost in making progress with the Bill. MR. LABOUCHERE begged to move the following Resolution : : "That leave be given to the proper Officer of this House to attend the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice with the paper writing subscribed by Mr. Charles Bradlaugh at the Table of the House on the 21st February last, and the copy of the New Testament named in the Journals of the House of the same date." He said, he had not anticipated that it would have been necessary for him to make any statement in submitting this Resolution, because he took it to be the usual practice in all these cases that the Papers asked for were given as a matter of course, more particularly when the authorities of the House did not interpose any objection; but, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had given Notice of his intention to oppose the Motion, it would be necessary for him (Mr. Labouchere) to explain to the House, in as few words as possible, what was his object in submitting it. It was obvious that Mr. Bradlaugh either did or did not take the Oath at the Table of the House. After either taking the Oath or not taking it, Mr. Bradlaugh sat in that House, and an action was brought against him by Mr. Gurney for penalties. On Friday last he (Mr. Labouchere) presented a Petition on the subject, and on Monday he put on the Paper the Resolution he had now risen to move. On that occasion the Motion was put down for hearing Business; but the hon. Member for North during the time devoted to Private Warwickshire objected to its being taken, and it was not proceeded with. It was then put down at the end of the Public Business, and again the hon. Member for North Warwickshire objected. He (Mr. Labouchere) had received a letter that day (Tuesday) from the solicitor to Mr. Bradlaugh, in which he was informed that it was absolutely necessary for Mr. Bradlaugh's case that he should obtain the Papers now asked for, and that it was very possible that the case would come on within a fortnight. Therefore, it was desirable that Mr. Bradlaugh's solicitor should obtain the Papers as soon as possible. He (Mr. Labouchere) believed that the objection. of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire was based on the idea that the Courts had decided that the present action action. With the permission of the a collusive House, he would read what Mr. Bradlaugh's solicitor said in reference to the matter, and he thought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would then perceive that he was entirely under an error. Mr. Bradlaugh's solicitor said was "In reply to your note, the action was not dismissed as collusive. The Judges said they believed the pleadings were so drawn as not to raise the real facts, and there and then they de clined to try the case on demurrer. They the whole of the facts might be raised, and the required the pleadings to be amended, so that action tried by a jury. The amendments have been made, and the case is down for trial, and it is with a view to that trial that the documents are required." He (Mr. Labouchere) had now explained the object of his Motion, which he now begged leave to submit for the acceptance of the House. Motion made, and Question proposed, this House to attend the Queen's Bench Division "That leave be given to the proper Officer of of the High Court of Justice, with the paper writing subscribed by Mr. Charles Bradlaugh at the Table of the House on the 21st February last, and the copy of the New Testament named in the Journals of the House of the same date.” -(Mr. Labouchere.) MR. NEWDEGATE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot concur in the very limited view of the scope of this Motion, which the hon. Member for Northampton has presented to the House. I may at once declare that I deny the assertion that the action promoted in the Court of on the 15th of May-the renewal of Mr. Bradlaugh: No, my lord." Queen's Bench-"Gurney v. Bradlaugh," you, Sir, he came to that Table, produced a paper and a volume of some kind, I suppose it was a Testament, from his pocket, read the paper, kissed the book, threw the paper and the book on the Table, and then declared that he had duly taken the Oath. After that he was ordered to withdraw from the House; but, notwithstanding that order, he voted, and his vote was reported at the Table by one of the Tellers, the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Rowland Winn). Now, the object of this action is to raise the question whether that vote was valid, and for the further purpose of bringing the Resolution adopted by this House on the 22nd of February under the cognizance and under the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law, in manifest derogation of the position and rights of this House, which, as part of the High Court of Parliament, is superior to, and exempt from, the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law, especially as to the regulation of its internal proceedings, except so far as the House may think fit voluntarily to submit any part of its proceedings to the Courts. This the House has not done in the case of its Resolution of the 22nd of February last, which stands as follows: Mr. Justice Manisty: Then there is an end to the case. Of itself, that would prevent our hearing it." These were the concluding words of Mr. Justice Manisty when he dismissed the case; and he dismissed the case because Mr. Bradlaugh was obliged to acknowledge that there was no controversy between the plaintiff and Gurney, and himself, the defendant. I think, Sir, that no hon. Member will now dispute what was the opinion of Mr. Justice Manisty on the 15th of May, 1882, when he spoke as the mouthpiece of the Court of Queen's Bench. From the first, when this case of Gurney v. Bradlaugh" was brought before them, both the learned Judges of that Court stated that the pleadings were suspiciously imperfect. It was this that led them-both Mr. Justice Manisty and Mr. Justice Watkin Williams-to the conclusion that the case was collusive; and I have read to the House the concluding words of the senior Judge, expressing their decision that the case was manifestly collusive, that conclusion being founded upon the defective nature of the pleadings, and at last upon the acknowledgment of Mr. Bradlaugh himself that there was no controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant, the Judges in consequence refused to hear the case. The suit rejected on the 15th of May and the suit contemplated by the Motion before the House are identical-the plaintiff and the defendant the same persons. Let me now call the attention of the House to the avowed purpose of Mr. Bradlaugh in attempting to bring under the cognizance and within the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench the Resolution by which this House condemned his conduct, when, on the 21st of February, uncalled by "Resolved, that Charles Bradlaugh, Esquire, one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton, having disobeyed the Orders of the House, and having, in contempt of the authority of this House, irregularly and contumaciously pretended to take and subscribe the Oath required by Law, be expelled this House." Immediately after this Resolution was adopted, the House adopted a Resolution ordering a new Writ to be issued for the election of a Member for the borough of Northampton. Mr. Bradlaugh has also avowed that he induced this fictitious complainant, Gurney, who, I believe, is a person resident in or near Northampton, to bring this pretended action, in order to give him the advantage of appearing as defendant. Is it not manifest, Sir, that this is a collusive action-a fictitious action? And, moreover, that it was brought for the purpose of bringing within the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench a Resolution of this House regulating its own internal state and proceedings, with no permission from the House itself. I would recall to the memory of the House that the Resolution of July the 1st, |