evictions; but he understood from the | manston, in Meath. The execution right hon. Gentleman's remarks that the having failed on two or three occasions, hands of the Government were tied by by reason of a technical error on the part the Resolution of the House pledging of the process-server, the Emergency them to proceed from day to day with men at last determined to make good the Prevention of Crime Bill, and that the process of the law by deliberately they were not going to touch the Arrears setting fire to the houses of the tenants, Question until the Prevention of Crime and burning them over their heads. The Bill had been discussed and disposed of. parish priest of the district, who inHe appealed to the Government to take formed him of the occurrence, was first the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill day made aware of it by seeing the flames by day and stage by stage with the one rising from the roofs of the whole village they were at present dealing with. a couple of miles distant, and, upon There were in the month of May no less coming into the town, he found the than 1,188 evictions, and it was not too bailiffs and process-servers busily enmuch to say that one-half of them would gaged in burning down the houses of the have been averted by the passage of that tenants in presence of their wives and Bill. It was as if the Government had children, the men themselves being away. launched a lifeboat to rescue a drowning When such a state of things as that was crew, and had then put back to settle permitted in Ireland, it was absolutely cersome miserable quarrel upon the shore; tain that the present contention would go while, one by one, the wretched sailors on increasing. They had in three months dropped from the rigging and were lost. of the present year no less than 3,400 evicThey appealed to Her Majesty's Govern- tions in a single month, which was more ment to stop this wretched state of things, than double the number on which the and thus bring back to Ireland that Prime Minister based the Compensation peace which would never be obtained by for Disturbance Bill of last year. These coercive measures. What caused in- evictions were supported by bodies of creased bitterness in the minds of the police and military, and the state of Irish people was this-They had seen things which they produced he (Mr. the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill Metge) called nothing less than civil introduced and read a second time, war, which every person who wished and notwithstanding that they were well to Ireland desired to see ended. being dragged from their homes and He thought when the Government asked turned on the road-sides and into the for strong measures of repression against workhouses in thousands week after the people, the Irish Members were enweek. titled to ask that some limitation and punishment should be put upon the crimes which were now committed day after day by the landlords of Ireland. MR. METGE said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not in his place, as he wished to extract from him a definite SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, anwer to the question put to him by he rose merely to enforce the appeal the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. made by the right hon. Gentleman the Redmond) with respect to the action the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir Government intended to take in cases R. Assheton Cross), that they should in which bailiffs and Emergency men now be allowed to go into Committee deliberately set fire to the houses of upon the Prevention of Crime Bill. As tenants whom they had evicted. The his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary case put before the House by his hon. for Ireland had already stated, the GoFriend was very strong; but he (Mr.vernment were anxious to pass the Metge) knew a case in his own county which was of a still more aggravated character. He brought the case before Parliament on two or three occasions, and he received no answer, which satisfied him that the Government intended to take any action in the matter. The case he referred to was that of a large series of evictions on the estate of Lord Gor VOL. CCLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill; but they could entertain no measure until the former Bill had been disposed of. It was quite time to cease that fruitless discussion, seeing that four hours had been spent upon a subject which any reasonable person would think might very well have been disposed of in one hour. 2 Q DR. COMMINS said, the attention | parties to a contract in which all the of the Government had been called, over obligation would rest on them, while no and over again, to the burning by agents corresponding obligation would rest on of landlords of the dwellings of tenants the Government. Suppose they were now who had been evicted; and, as such to desist from all further opposition to crimes were punishable under Statute or the Prevention of Crime Bill, could his Common Law, he wished to ask the right hon. Friend guarantee that the Governhon. and learned Gentleman the Attor- ment would persist with their Arrears of ney General for Ireland, whether such Rent (Ireland) Bill, no matter what opacts as those described by the hon. Mem-position might arise against it in this or ber for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) did not amount to arson under the Common and Statute Law, and whether he had ordered any prosecution in the numerous cases which had been brought before him? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, he must deny that the acts mentioned constituted the offence of arson, and he had, therefore, ordered no prosecution. MR. LEA said, he believed the Arrears of Rent Bill would be a far better deterrent to crime than the Bill now before the House; but until the Prevention of Crime Bill was disposed of, no other Business could be taken, and it was their duty to get rid of it as soon as possible. If, therefore, the Irish Members curtailed their opposition to the latter Bill the House might more readily pass the former Bill. Evictions were undoubtedly taking place in Ireland to a very serious extent, notably the County Donegal, where for the past two months a great number of tenants had been evicted. He was also informed by a friend who had recently come from the North of Ireland that evictions would become more numerous. Under such circumstances, they were most anxious to get the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill through; and, with that object in view, he hoped hon. Members opposite would not continue their prolonged opposition to the Prevention of Crime Bill. MR. O'CONNOR POWER said, he perfectly agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea), that it was highly desirable, in the interests of peace and tranquillity in Ireland, that the House should be allowed to approach the consideration of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill as soon as possible; but he (Mr. O'Connor Power) thought his hon. Friend would see that in saying that he was asking for too much, for it was inviting them to accept a one-sided engagement. He was asking them to become the other House of Parliament? Would the Government act in reference to that Bill as they acted in reference to the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, the rejection of which, in his opinion, was the source and beginning of most of the trouble and annoyance which had since arisen in Ireland? That showed how impossible it was to carry out the proposal of his hon. Friend. They must take things as they came before them; and if the Government, having absolute discretion in their hands, had made the mistake of placing coercion before remedial legislation, on their head would rest the responsibility. To charge the Irish Members with any responsibility for the state of things which arose out of that choice would be to make them responsible for that over which they had absolutely no control. He wished to appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Donegal, who was elected to support Her Majesty's Government, and who loyally supported Her Majesty's Government, and, therefore, might be supposed to have some influence over Her Majesty's Government-he asked him and other Members of the House to approach Her Majesty's Government on this subject. The Prime Minister stated, a few weeks ago, that he would avail himself of every lucid interval to push forward the Ar rears of Rent (Ireland) Bill. They had looked in vain for the appearance of that interval, and he wished to ask whether the time had not now come when something might be done with it? Why did not his hon. Friend appeal to the Conservative Party to abridge their long speeches on the Egyptian Question, allow Egyptian affairs to be managed by those who were responsible for the policy of the Govern ment, and let them go on with their ordinary affairs? It would be scandalous and a disgrace to the Irish Representatives if they allowed the present Bill to go through without discussion, in that way consenting to see every principle of their liberties struck down, as was pro posed by that Bill, on a bargain, as he said, in which all the obligations were on their side; while, on the other hand, the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill would still remain at the discretion of the Government, acting under the coercion of the Conservative Party. If the opposite course entailed the responsibility of retarding the remedial measure of the Government, let them not hesitate to take that course, seeing their end could be obtained by no other means. MR. BORLASE said, he wished the Government would accede to the request of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and have a Saturday's Sitting. "Oh, oh!"] He said that as much in the interest of the Scottish and English legislation, which had been kept behind, as in the interest of Ireland. The present bad weather was beginning to make persons look to the harvest; and there appeared a prospect of another Session passing without anything being done for the agricultural interests of England and Scotland, which demanded attention. They ought to look at the mass of legislation behind the two Bills referred to in the discussion, and reflect how it was being hindered, solely by the waste of time now taking place. to the discussion of the Coercion Bill, their observations would be of no use, that Her Majesty's Government at the commencement of each clause would state what was their will, and would refuse all Amendments on the part of the Irish Members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland stated that when arson was committed by Emergency men it was not a crime. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I never made any such statement. MR. O'DONNELL: I am translating the right hon. and learned Gentleman's language into plain English, stripped of the technicalities of Dublin Castle law. If they wished to deal fairly with both sides, let them introduce a provision into the Coercion Act, making the burning of houses by Emergency men a crime. MR. P. A. TAYLOR said, he had contented himself hitherto with entering a silent protest against the Coercion Bill by voting against it, because he saw it was of no use opposing the Bill in the face of the overwhelming power brought into operation by the junction of the two great Parties. The sooner the Bill was passed the sooner they would get to remedial measures. admitted the satisfaction he had felt at the frank and earnest statement of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and regretted the unfavourable criticisms made upon it by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. At the same time, he could not but express his pro He Government in bringing on coercive before remedial measures; coercive measures which all history proved would not paralyze the arm of the assassin nor insure detection; but would add weight MR. O'DONNELL said, he believed that it would be a very small minority of the people of Donegal who would support the Liberal Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) in his appeal to the Irish Party to give up their resistance to Coercion. He was glad, however, to hear from the hon. Member for Donegal that he was aware of the cruel evictions that were taking place in the country-test against the fatuity of Her Majesty's evictions in which all the rights were on the side of the tenants, and all the wrongs on the side of the landlords. But he could not but think that these deplorable facts would have been more properly brought forward at the intro-to the disgust and hatred of the Engduction of the Coercion Bill as a reason for delaying the Coercion Bill, and not as a reason why Irish Members should now decline to criticize, and, if possible, amend that Bill. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had deprecated conversations of this kind; but the observation would have more power if it had not been preceded by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland informed Irish Members that, even with regard lish Government in Ireland, out of which Motion, by leave, withdrawn. ORDER OF THE DAY. 19:0:6om PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL-[BILL 157.] (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.) COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th June.] LELEVENTH NIGHT.] Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) PART II. OFFENCES AGAINST THIS ACT. Clause 7 (Illegal meetings). of meeting to which he had the slightest objection? What, then, was the necessity for this clause? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, the first part of the clause gave the necessary power to the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit illegal meetings, and the second part was necessary to give the means of effectuating that prohibition by action against individuals who declined to obey the law. At present, where a proclamation was issued against the holding of a public meeting, the only means by which effect could be given to it was to disperse the meeting by force. It was thought to be necessary that there should be a continual machinery, and by this clause that machinery would be provided, so as to bring those who took part in an illegal meeting within the summary jurisdiction of the Act. This was the reason why the clause was deemed to be necessary. MR. P. MARTIN, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 14, to leave out the words "to be," in order to insert the words "of which public notice MR. SEXTON wished to know whether shall be given," said, the clause, as at the right hon. and learned Gentleman present framed, might lead to gross in- the Secretary of State for the Home Dejustice. It presented no public notifica- partment (Sir William Harcourt) was tion of the fact that this order had been aware that during last year the Lord made. Persons might attend, wholly Lieutenant had prohibited two classes of unaware the meeting had been made meetings, the sheriff's sales and ordinary illegal. The hon. and learned Gen-public meetings? He also wished to tleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had an Amendment lower down on the Paper, by which he also sought to obviate the infliction of the severe penalties, for offences against this section, on persons who might be ignorant that there was any prohibition. If this clause was left without amendment, it might cause the greatest injustice. know whether, in consequence of disobedience to these prohibitions, any public inconvenience had arisen? He desired to know likewise whether it was not the fact that the ordinary law was sufficient? MR. PARNELL said, before that question was answered he would like to ask another. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) any information to give the Committee as to the number of public meetings that had heen prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant during the last six or 12 months; and also as to the number of cases in which the proclamations of the Lord Lieutenant had been obeyed, or in which it had become necessary to disperse the meetings by force? DR. COMMINS said, he also wished to ask whether, under the law, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had been entitled to make the proclamations that had been issued during the last 12 months? So far as his (Dr. Commins') research was concerned, the action of the Lord Lieutenant in this respect was not only utterly unconstitutional, but was also utterly | preservation of the peace in Ireland. illegal. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, the questions that had just been put were entirely contradictory. One question assumed that the power was legal, and that of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Commins) assumed that the power was not legal. If the exercise of that power was not legal, it was the object of this clause to make it so; and if, on the other hand, it was legal, it was still desirable that the doubt expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman should be removed, and that the people of Ireland should be made aware, by the declaration contained in that clause, that the power was legal. He need not say that Her Majesty's Government had introduced this clause with very great reluctance, and he might add that there was what he might term a national feeling among Englishmen of all parties and shades of opinion-a feeling of repug nance at the interference thus proposed with the rights of the people; and he believed that, in many parts of the House, he should be believed when he made this statement. But they ought never to allow themselves to be blinded to the fact that they could not overlook the actual state of the case. They were bound to consider what the condition of Ireland really was at the present time, and what were the peculiar circumstances which rendered the application of remedies of an extraordinary character absolutely indispensable. Public meetings might, no doubt, be considered as a source of light; but they ought to have some regard to the atmosphere into which the light was carried, and it would be the height of recklessness to carry a light in the form of a naked candle into a chamber filled with explosive material. It had been said that proposals of this character ought to be specially repugnant to the feelings of the Liberal Party. That was perfectly true; but he would call attention to the fact that, at one time, after the Liberal Party had been out of Office for half-a-century, during which they had had to fight the battle of freedom in Opposition, it became their unfortunate duty, but still their duty, and a duty which they did not shrink from performing, in the very first year after the passing of the Reform Bill, to introduce measures which they considered to be absolutely indispensable for the That was the great Liberal Reform Administration, which was represented by Lord Grey in the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons by a Relative of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He supposed he might say, without fear of contradiction, that there was no man living who was more indisposed to recommend the adoption of measures of that description than the present Earl Spencer, unless it was that distinguished man, Lord Althorp, who was his Relative, and who was a Member of the Administration just referred to. And yet Lord Althorp, in the very infancy of the Reform Parliament, found it necessary, in the then disturbed condition of Ireland, to introduce a Bill, the very first clause of which contained these words: "That it shall and may be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, at any time after the during the continuance thereof, as occasion may passing of this Act, and from time to time require, by his or their order in writing, of which public notice shall be given, to prohibit or suppress the meeting of any association, assembly, or body of persons which he or they shall deem to be dangerous to the public peace or safety, or inconsistent with the due administration of the law, and by the same, or any other order also to prohibit any or every adjourned, renewed, or otherwise continued meeting of the same or of any part thereof under and that every meeting of any association, asany name, pretext, shift or device whatsoever, sembly or body of persons, the meeting whereof shall be so shall be so prohibited or suppressed as aforesaid, and every postponed, adjourned, renewed or otherwise continued meeting thereof under or. any name pretext, shift or device whatsoever, shall be and be deemed an unlawful assembly, and after notice has been given of such meeting having been prohibited or suppressed, as aforesaid, every person present at the same shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and every such offence, whether committed within any district proclaimed in pursuance of this Act, or elsewhere, in Ireland, shall be tried and punished according to the course of the common law." MR. PARNELL: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman in what year that Act was passed? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, the Act was passed in the year 1833, the first year after the election of the Reform Parliament. MR. PARNELL said, he would like also to be informed whether that Act abolished trial by jury in these cases? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, the Act did not abolish trial by jury. The hon. Member for the City |