to be called upon to prove. It seemed to him that the Court ought, first of all, to be satisfied that the accused was out under circumstances indicating the intention to commit a crime, and words to that effect he understood the Home Secretary was prepared to introduce. If the words

"If the Court is satisfied that he is out under circumstances indicating an intention to commit crime,"

or some to that effect, were inserted, then, he thought, the accused ought fairly to be called upon to prove something, and he should be liable to conviction if he failed to satisfy the Court that he was out for some purpose other

than the commission of crime.

MR. PARNELL wished to ask why

the Government wanted to have this clause more severe than the clause of the Act of 1870, which was found, according to the statement of the Chief Secretary, to have been sufficient for its purpose? The Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), practically speaking, would make this part of the clause similar to the corresponding part of the clause dealing with the same subject in the Act of 1870. This clause practically

threw the onus of proving his innocence upon the person arrested; but the 23rd section of the Act of 1870 obliged the Justices to believe that a person was not out of the house upon some lawful occasion or business, and then they might commit him to gaol for six months with hard labour. He certainly thought the Government ought to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend so far as it made the clause similar to the one in the corresponding section of the Act of 1870. This clause said

"And if such person, on appearing before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting under this Act fails to satisfy the Court that he was out of his place of abode upon some lawful occasion or business he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."

He wished to ask why the Government could not accept the Amendment, or some similar Amendment, which would have the effect of reducing the stringency of the clause, and making it correspond with a like clause in the Act of 1870? He had intended to move an Amendment in the same spirit as that of his hon. Friend. His Amendment would have been to leave out the words from

Mr. Pugh

the word "if," in line 26, to the word "out," in line 28, and insert "the Court shall believe that such person was not." That would have had the effect of making the clause read in this way—

"To bring him before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting under this Act, and if the Court shall believe that such person was not out of his place of abode upon some lawful occasion or business, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."

That would make it similar to the clause in the Act of 1870, and he did not think it was an unreasonable proposal to make to the Government. The Government said the Act of 1870 was effectual for its purpose, and, therefore, he thought they might fairly ask the Government to modify the clause in the direction in

dicated.

DR. COMMINS said, that, whether the exact words of the Amendment were adopted or not, some Amendment ought to be adopted which would carry out the idea embodied in the Amendment. The clause, as it stood, was open to very serious objection, for, being a clause that created a criminal offence, it seemed against the ordinary principles of the Criminal Law by substituting suspicion for proof.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) understood the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to desire the adoption of the words of the Act of 1870. He had consulted with his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and he had to say that his right hon. and learned Friend would be willing to assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, if the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. DILLON said, he, of course, would withdraw his Amendment, although upon the question of punishment he had received no answer. strongly of opinion that the punishment for the offence ought not to be so severe as was proposed in the clause.

He was

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLON presumed the Attorney General would move his own Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, the matter would want some consideration. He would promise to take the words of the Act of

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, it was rather late for the hon. Member to propose this Amendment. The arrest of people might become to them, under such an Amendment, a very lucrative occupation. A man might make himself suspicious in order to be arrested at night, and get an indemnity the next. morning.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN said, the object of the Amendment was to place some little check upon the overweening zeal of the Irish police, and some check was certainly necessary. It was all very well for the Home Secretary to imagine extreme cases from his point of view. Why not the Irish Members imagine extreme cases from their point of view? Why could not they imagine an over-zealous policemen having a desire to arrest a man, no matter whether he had good cause or not? It was not likely that a policeman would get into any trouble if he made an unjust arrest; but, on the contrary, he would get credit from his superior officer for being extremely zealous and active. Let them imagine another case. The Home Secretary had a way of giving wings and freedom to his imagination. Let them try something of the same style of argument, and let them suppose the case of a policeman or magistrate who had any spite against a particular individual. Under this clause, it would be in the power of these officials to arrest the man if he happened to be out at night, and bring him up next day only to send him about his business again. The police and magistrates could, under this clause, harass and annoy the people, although they might not always be able to inflict punishment upon them. He did not think that was a far-fetched supposition; indeed, it was more reasonable than the humorous idea which had been laid before the Committee by the Home Secretary.

MR. GIBSON said, no Amendment could possibly be more unpopular with

the tenants; and he was sure that if the hon. Member knew that the money proposed to be given would neither come out of his own pocket, nor out of the pockets of the landlords, he would at once withdraw his proposal.

MR. SEXTON hailed with satisfaction

the appearance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) as champion of the tenants of Ireland.

MR. SYNAN said, the proposal would, if accepted, inflict a pecuniary loss upon those whose interests the hon. Member advocated. Why should innocent ratepayers suffer in having to provide com pensation for wrongs thus inflicted upon other innocent ratepayers?

MR. GILL said, as there seemed to be an agreement that this expense should not fall on the ratepayers, he would suggest a less objectionable course, that would save the rates, and, at the same time, curb the excessive zeal of the Constabulary, and that was to make the money chargeable on the £180,000 about to be voted to the Irish Constabulary. Question put, and negatived.

MR. MARUM moved to add, at the end of the clause

"Provided, That if he decline to tender him. self for examination as such witness, the ordi nary presumption of innocence shall not be thereby rebutted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, it was impossible to accept the Amendment; it must be a matter left to the discretion of the magistrates and the Court to deal with. They could not tell the magistrate what he must think of the conduct of a person under such circumstances.

Amendment negatived.

MR. METGE said, he had an Amend. ment to propose which he thought the Government could accept. It was one of considerable importance to the poorer classes, because it was probable that among these a great number of arrests would be made, and the children and families of the person arrested might have to suffer considerable privation on account of the suspicion of crime upon which the arrest was made. There was nothing exceptional in the words he wished to add at the end of the clause; it was merely assimilating the Bill to the law as it stood in England under 12 & 13 Vict., where there was a clause ex

tending the right of Poor Law relief to families of persons confined in gaol or other places of custody; whereas, in Ireland, Poor Law allowances could only be extended to families of persons incapacitated from mental or bodily infirmity. So, in the case of any person arrested under this Act, his family would be excluded from the benefit of outdoor relief. The persons likely to be arrested under this Act were of the labouring class, shop-assistants, and the lower class of artizans, just the classes whose families were least able to support themselves when the male head of the family was taken from them. For this reason he thought the Government should accept the Amendment. He moved similar words to the Act of last year, and after some hesitation the Government accepted them, and to his own knowledge they proved a considerable benefit to poor people. The chief reason which he would press upon the Government was this-that hardly as the Coercion Act bore upon the people of Ireland, one of its worst features was the fruit that it inevitably bore, and one of the most bitter feelings raised among the people was that not only were they liable to arbitrary arrest, but that arrest included misery and destitution to the members of their families.

Amendment proposed,

In page 4, at end, to add "the family, if any, of any person detained under this Act, shall not thereby be incapacitated from receiving outdoor relief, if otherwise qualified to receive it, but shall in all cases be dealt with by the board of guardians of their respective unions in the same manner as if the person so detained under this Act had been suffering from mental or bodily infirmity."-(Mr. Metge.)

Question proposed, "That those words. be there added."

MR. HEALY said, he thought the words were better as they were to be found in the Coercion Act of last year, and they would come at the end of the Bill. Those words were that the provisions of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act of 1880, and as amended by the Act of the same year, should apply so far as outdoor relief was concerned. He would suggest, as regarded these provisions, that during the continuance of this Act they should be extended; but whether the Amendment should come here or at the end of the Bill was another matter. But he trusted the Government, if they

did not accept the Amendment now, would not exclude it from their consideration later on. Then, perhaps, his hon. Friend would be induced to move the Amendment in the form of the Act of last year later on. The Committee had now reached a time when, perhaps, it was too late to consider the matter, unless the Government had made up their minds on the point.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, if the Amendment were accepted, its proper place would not be at the end of this clause. If the Amendment were brought up on Report it should receive every consideration meanwhile; but he could make no promise on it.

MR. METGE really thought the Government might make some promise. It was a matter of the greatest importance, and there was no possible reason urged against the Amendment. With the intention of raising it later on he would now withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON said, it would be admitted as a fact that the crimes and acts that this Bill was intended to repress were connected with rural life and occupations with which cities and towus had no connection. In towns people moved about upon their ordinary lawful business at a much later hour. Were the Government willing to accept some such provision as this

66

'Provided, That no arrest shall be made under this clause at an earlier hour than ten o'clock at night in any city or town in Ireland." He begged to move an Amendment in those words.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, of course the Committee understood that this clause would only apply to proclaimed districts, and it was unlikely that towns would be proclaimed. And then it was very difficult at the moment to provide a definition of the term "town," should it be municipal borough, or Parliamentary borough, or what else. If the Amendment were brought up on Report the Government would take it into consideration; but they could not accept it now. There was some force in the observations made by the hon. Member; but, in the absence of the Home Secretary, the only promise that could be made was that the Amendment should be considered.