DR. COMMINS regretted that theright | America, or France, or Australia, or hon. and learned Gentleman had left the anywhere else abroad, would be safe clause in its present shape, because he from an indictment for treason-felony did not think that it carried out the when he returned home again. It was object the right hon. and learned Gentle- not necessary that he should have said or man said he had in view when he con- done anything which might be construed structed it. There were two offences into a treasonable practice. Speeches which were first contemplated-namely, might be invented for him and provided murder on the high seas, and murder by perjured witnesses, and in this way a beyond the high seas. There seemed now new terror would be introduced for every to have been another offence, of which Irishman who had occasion to go outside the right hon. and learned Gentleman Ireland. No man would be able to go was not originally aware. The notorious abroad without running the risk of being and well-known Act of 1848 introduced | indicted for treasonable practices. Under the offence of treason-felony, and in- these circumstances, although the Provolved principles which were not to be viso of the right hon. and learned Gentlefound in any other Act. One of these man the Home Secretary might do was that the offence of treason-felony, no something towards limiting vexatious matter where committed, might be tried prosecutions, it must not be forgotten within this Kingdom, provided they that the Act would still apply to offences caught the offender. The offence was a which were committed outside Ireland, very peculiar and extraordinary one. It and he should be glad if the right hon. was an entirely new offence, and one and learned Gentleman could see his which had never been made a crime any- way to restrict the clause still more, so where before the passing of that Act. as to prevent the abuse of the Act The Act itself applied to "treasonable by common informers, extortioners, and practices," and before that Act passed persons who made a trade of perjury in constructive treason had been a puzzle to Ireland. So far as he could see, there was the lawyer and a terror to the politician. nothing in the Bill to prevent trumpedBut if constructive treason was a terror, up charges being made, and persons "treasonable practices "were much more being tried for them as having been of a terror. He did not know why it guilty of treasonable practices. should be so, because he did not believe MR. HEALY said, he wished to ask that a single indictment had ever yet a question on a point of Order. The Bill been framed for treasonable practices; was entitled "Prevention of Crime (Ireand unless the present Bill assigned land); a Bill for the prevention of crime something more definite than this ex- in Ireland." That appeared upon the tremely undefinable phrase "treasonable cover of the Bill. Then, in the Bill itself, practices," it would be impossible to con- the words were the same-" Prevention vict anybody. Hitherto, he believed, it of Crime, Ireland; a Bill for the prehad been impossible to draw up an in-vention of crime in Ireland." The dictment showing what the offence of Pramble, which had been postponed, treasonable practices was. He presumed recited that— that was the reason why hitherto no person had been indicted under the Act for the particular so-called offence; but they were now going to get rid of the necessity of defining offences in legal and technical phraseology in the form of an indictment, and the new tribunal would have power to find a man guilty of treasonable practices without finding it necessary to have before them what had always been necessary up to this time-namely, a formal indictment on the part of the Government who were the prosecutors defining the offence. Therefore, this Bill introduced a new danger. No man who ever went out of Ireland for a moment-no Irishman who had been in "Whereas by reason of the action of secret societies and combinations for illegal purposes in Ireland, the operation of the ordinary law has become insufficient for the repression and prevention of crime, and it is expedient to make further provision for that purpose," and so on. The question he wished to put was this. Whether under the proposed clause, it being admitted that trials for treasonable offences which took place in Hong Kong were triable in this country, in a Bill which was only for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland, such an Amendment as that now before the Committee could be put from the Chair? THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order, but a point of law, in MR. HEALY said, that in that case he would ask the Government to consider another point. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England (Sir Henry James) said it was desirable to guard against murder committed in an open boat upon the high seas; but the clause was not confined to murder. It extended to treason and treason-felony. He would, therefore, ask the Government to accept an Amendment which would enable the Government to rest their case on murder-on murder in an open boat. The Proviso now said regard to which I am not competent to | It was impossible, therefore, that he give an opinion. So far as I can form could accept the words of the hon. an opinion, the words "unless a Judge Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and jury in Ireland have jurisdiction to limiting the clause to crimes committed try that person for the said offence," put in Ireland, of a treasonable character, the Amendment properly in Order. because treason was an offence triable wherever committed. There had been no attempt on his part to conceal that that was part of the object of the Bill. He had stated it in the most plain and direct manner, and he had thought that the hon. Member for Wexford accepted the declaration. [Mr. HEALY: No.] Certainly, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) did. [Mr. HEALY: Only as regards murder.] That was not so. His statement was accepted as regarded treason also; and he had distinctly stated why treason should not be excepted from the clause. He had no wish to charge anybody with a breach of faith; but, certainly, the course now taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite was a distinct departure from the understanding which he thought they had come to the other night. He had stated that treason was an offence which must be dealt with wherever it was committed. Whether a man went to Scotland, England, or Ireland, or to any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions, "Provided that nothing in this section shall empower a Special Commission Court to try a person for any offence, unless a judge and jury in Ireland have jurisdiction to try that person for the said offence." And he would propose to add to it these words "Provided no person shall be tried by the said Court for treason or treason-felony com mitted out of Ireland." If the intentions of the Government, inif he had committed treason, he was a regard to the clause, had been bond fide stated by the Attorney General, he did not see what objection there could be to the insertion of an Amendment to that The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was desirable to prevent the commission of crime on the high seas, and so on, where a Judge and jury in Ireland would have jurisdiction. The hon. and learned Gentleman denied that there was any desire on the part of the Government to cast their net all over the globe, so as to intercept, by means of spies and paid informers, any Irishman who happened to visit another country. Either the Government did desire to extend the operation of the Act to America, Australia, and the Colonies, or they did not. If they did, let it be made perfectly clear, and let there be a frank statement from the Home Secretary; and, if not, he trusted the Government would have no objection to accept his Amendment. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT remarked, that when this question was raised last week, he said at once that the clause was intended to include treason. person amenable to the law. He had stated that in the most open manner, and he had thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite, sitting below the Gangway, accepted it. Murder, instead of being a treasonable offence, was added afterwards, because it was suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that a person who might be killed in an open boat on the high seas would not come within the operation of the clause. Now, if an Irishman killed a man anywhere, he was amenable to the law whenever he came back to his own country. That was the law at this moment, and a very proper law. It was the same with respect to treason. If a person committed treason against the Crown-if an English person committed the murder of another English subject, and either of those persons came within the jurisdiction of the Crown, he was amenable, and would be, and ought to be, punished. He submitted that it was necessary to have all crimes of that nature punished; and if it was impossible to obtain a fair and impartial trial in any particular part of Ireland, then the offender should | under such circumstances in America. be tried before this Special Commission It was to prevent the possibility of such Court sitting in some other part of Ireland. It seemed to him that that was a simple statement easily understood. The Bill only proposed to apply the wellknown principles of the law-common to all the Three Kingdoms-to offences which came within the jurisdiction of the law in Ireland. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present, MR. JOSEPH COWEN said, he was not quite sure that the Home Secretary altogether carried out in this sub-section the promise he had given to the Committee, and he understood that there were several points upon which hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to have information. He gathered from the statement of the Attorney General that treason consisted of words spoken or articles written in a newspaper. If in either case the words, spoken or written, were treasonable, the man who spoke or wrote them might be tried for treason or treason-felony. But what he wanted to know was this. Suppose a man made a speech in Chicago, or California, or New Orleans, or New York, condemnatory of the Government, could that man be tried in Ireland for a speech thus made, on the ground of treason or treason-felony? That, he understood, was the point hon. Members wished to have clearly explained before they assented to the sub-section the Home Secretary proposed to add to the Bill. During the last two years speeches had been made in America, some of them by hon. Members of that House, which had been made the subject of adverse comment in the House. Was it possible for those hon. Gentlemen, if this Bill became law, to be tried in Ireland for treason or treason-felony? The English Government might have agents spread all over America. Although the Fenian agitation was not carried on very extensively there now, it still existed. The Government agents might, therefore, attend meetings, hear what was said, and then give a very imperfect report of what they had heard; and, on the evidence of these inefficient reporters, a trumped-up case might be made against a man, and he might be tried for treason or treasonfelony in connection with a speech made Sir William Harcourt a circumstance taking place that the Committee wanted to know from the Government whether, in such a case, it was possible for a man to be tried in Ireland for treason or treason-felony owing to a speech he might have made, for instance, in Chicago? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he had no hesitation in answering that question. No man could be tried or convicted on an imperfect report of what he had said. In regard to speeches, the Committee had discussed that question at considerable length on the proposal to include treason and treason-felony in the Bill. It was not true that a man could be tried for any words he might utter, which-to repeat the phrase used by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen)-were strongly condemnatory of the Government. Certainly not; nor for words strongly condemnatory of the system of government. He had ventured to point out to the Committee, and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for England had also pointed out, what the Law of Treason was in that respect. It had also been explained in regard to treason-felony and advised speaking, that the offence was limited to two years after the passing of the Act of 1848. Therefore, treason-felony, as defined in that Act, did not now exist; and as regarded treason, it must be coupled and directly connected with a design to attack the system of government in this country. Words spoken with such an object and intention were treason, wherever they were spoken; and it did not signify whether they were spoken in Ireland, England, or anywhere else. If a British subject, by speaking or writing, endeavoured to advise or persuade an invasion of this Realm by foreigners, that was treason; and it was treason whereever it was committed. If a subject of the Queen 'persuaded or advised, either by speaking or writing, foreigners to invade and attack the Realm, wherever he wrote or made his speech, he was guilty of treason; and if he subsequently came anywhere within the Dominions of the Queen he could be arrested, and was triable and ought to be convicted of treason. That was his (Sir William Harcourt's) opinion, and he had never concealed that opinion. They could not man. alter the Law of Treason, and, as far as | lightly, with the simple observation that he could see, there was nothing unrea- the nation was bound to defend itself sonable in it. A subject of the Queen against an individual guilty of such an had no right to go to any part of act. Now, this was a Bill of a very exthe world and advise foreigners to in- ceptional character, and a Bill which vade the Realm and attack the settled was to apply only to Ireland. Then why system of government in this country. did they not limit it, as much as posHe had no more right to do that in sible, to what was absolutely necessary America than he had to do it in Eng- to meet the circumstances of the case? land, Ireland, Scotland, or France. Why should they cast their net so Every country must act on the principle widely, all over the world, in the chance of self-defence; and these were prin- of bringing in some one or two or three ciples of self-defence which every Go- men as traitors, and punishing them vernment must reserve to itself. He without a jury, in case of their landing in hoped that he had satisfactorily an- Ireland? A clause of this kind was really swered the question of the hon. Gentle- only a trap and a net in which to catch the unwary. Where there was a real design for the invasion of Ireland by armed men from America, they might be perfectly sure that the conspirators would be real conspirators and real enemies of England, who would act in such a way that the nets of the Home Secretary would be spread for them in vain. If there were incitements to treason in speeches or writings in America, those speeches and absolute incitements would be made, probably, by the leaders of the organization in America, who need not have much fear of coming within the jurisdiction of this Act, for that sort of offence at any rate; but, on the other hand, a man in America-an Irish politician, for instance-might use very warm language denunciatory of the Government in Ireland; and he wanted to know what kind of denunciation would be safe from the mischievous misinterpretation of two or three partizan Judges in Ireland? If an Irishman in America were to say, for instance, that the Act of Union was only passed by force, would it be considered treason? Because it was a thing that might be said here in England by any man without putting himself in danger. There would be no fear whatever that any man would be brought before an English jury and condemned or convicted of treason for having uttered such a sentiment. But suppose a man said the same thing in America, and suppose some other man -some native Irish-American-should be present at the same public meeting, without having any other connection whatever with the Irish politician, and should declare that the circumstances under which English rule was established in Ireland were such as to deprive that rule of all right to obedience, and that MR. O'DONNELL said, there was this objection to the position in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had placed the matter. Any man who was guilty of treason in foreign parts against his own country, by words or writing, had a right to be tried by a jury of his countrymen when he returned to England. That was an element of the case which had been altogether left out of consideration by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. What was proposed to be done under this Bill was that a number of Judges in Ireland, who were Government nominees, and who in no way represented the country, should have the power of declaring and deciding absolutely upon a whole number of points which were involved in this clause. He should like the Committee to see the number of points involved. A man might be accused of having made a speech in New York, which was alleged to be treasonable. In order to be treasonable, the speech must have been in connection with a design to bring about an armed invasion by foreigners of the Queen's Dominions, for the purpose of oversetting the Queen's authority in Ireland or elsewhere. Therefore, these two or three Government nominees were in the same breath to decide that there was a design, that the speech was uttered in connection with that design, and that the words of the speech were words which, taken in connection with the design, amounted to an invitation to foreigners to invade the Realm. And this they were to decide without the protection of the common sense and the impartial mind of a jury. The Home Secretary passed over all that very the sooner such rule was put an end to by force the better, they might have a partizan Judge in Ireland putting together the speech of the American in the body of the hall, or on the platform, with that of the Irish politician, with whom he had no connection, whatever, and, finding a certain amount of identity in the expression by which the Irish politician had condemned the means by which the Act of Union was brought about, he would at once declare that the speech was treasonable. Yet here, any ordinary English politician-the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, for instance-might in this country denounce the means which brought about the Union with perfect safety; and yet, merely because a solitary Irish-American added to the speech of the Irish politician a rider, declaring that the system which had been established ought to be put down by any means, they would have partizan Judges declaring that there was clear evidence of a design of a treasonable character against the Queen's government in Ireland; and, putting together the two speeches, it would be easy to make out a regular invitation to an armed force to invade Ireland, especially if the meeting was attended by any muster of armed forces, which was generally the case when any meeting was held in America in connection with the ordinary rites of citizenship. It was no unusual circumstance to have at such a meeting some 300,000 or 400,000 soldiers or State Militia; and it was just possible that a partizan Judge in Ireland would triumphantly parade that fact as a proof of the presence of armed men, and would say that Mr. A. B., the Member for so-and-so, in Ireland, had, in such an armed assembly, denounced the English rule as having been unjustly established in Ireland. The evident conclusion to which the partizan Judge would arrive was that this was treason, intended to incite armed men to put an end to English government in Ireland; and it was quite clear, therefore, that penal servitude would, in such a case, be the least result of the operation of this clause of the Bill, as it had been expounded by the Home Secretary. But he (Mr. O'Donnell) repeated that it was only unwary politicians who would be caught by the Bill-innocent men who would have no treasonable designs. Any Mr. O'Donnell man who had a treasonable design would take very great care that he did not express it in that way; he would know that it would be much safer to express it in quiet over a private breakfast-table in a secluded room, in some New York hotel or some New York mansion, in the presence of some half-dozen leaders of the Irish Brotherhood. And words uttered in that way would have ten times greater effect. But it was not against crime of that kind that the Bill was directed. Treason, under such circumstances, would be perfectly safe, and that was one great fault he found with the Bill. All through the Bill was an utterly ineffective one for the prevention of crime, while it would be exceedingly effective in putting down legitimate political agitation. He came now to the question of evidence. Upon what evidence would the charge be brought home? It was palpable that it would be upon the evidence of spies and informers, whose characters would be already blasted; and upon that ground alone it would be more valuable in the eyes of a partizan Judge. He could assure the Home Secretary that the stringent force of the Bill would lose nothing by leaving outside of it offences of that kind; while, by leaving them in, it was liable to create an enormous amount of disaffection, and was likely to afford facilities for the unjust punishment of moderate men. It must also be borne in mind that there was not a line in the proposed Amendment which was calculated to bring dangerous enemies of Her Majesty's Government to justice. The clause, as it stood, was directly aimed against public agitation. If the Irish people sent out a deputation to the United States, for the purpose of inducing the United States Government to undertake their friendly offices with England-in the same way that England proffered her friendly services to Turkey-there was hardly a sentence which such a deputation could utter, if they were reported to Irish partizan Judges, which would not subject them to conviction for treason, and to the punishment of penal servitude. MR. LABOUCHERE observed, that before the discussion ended, he desired to point out a mistake which he ventured to think the Government had made by putting in the same category such offences as treason and private crimes, |