MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Martin P. Kenny was released yesterday.

land, Whether the case of Mr. M. P. | that he had sufficient force with him to Kenny, of Castlecomer, at present de- enable him to carry out his orders, and tained under the Coercion Act, has been he met Mr. Andrew Pelin in the street reconsidered; and, whether he can now and advised him, as an Assistant Narecommend his release? tional School Teacher, not to attend the concert. The programme had not been submitted to the police for approval. The head constable denies that he ever said he does not care about Questions in reference to his conduct being put in Parliament. The Inspector General informs me that he is a man of excellent character, and there is no reason why he should be removed from the district.

IRELAND-INTERFERENCE OF THE

POLICE-EDENDERRY.

IRELAND-THE "TREATY OF

KILMAINHAM."

MR. MOLLOY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the alleged conduct of the head constable of Edenderry, as reported in the "Leinster Leader" of June the 3rd, when a social concert was given at the residence, Leitrim House, of Mr. Eugene O'Brien ; SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I whether the head constable, Macken, beg to ask the Prime Minister a Queshad any authority either under the exist- tion, of which I have not given him priing law, or by direction from the authori-vate Notice; but the Question is of ties, to stop in the street and threaten Mr. Eugene O'Brien, his brother, Mr. Michael O'Brien, the Poor Rate Collector, and Mr. Andrew Pelin, that if they attended this concert he would report them, and suggesting pains and penalties in case of their attendance; whether the head constable attended at the concert with a large body of men, and threatened that in the event of any interference with his note taking he would shoot the people; whether the programme of the concert had been previously submitted to and approved by the police; whether if the allegations are well founded he will now remove head constable Macken from this district; and, whether the head constable has publicly stated that he does not care about any Questions relating to his conduct being asked in Parliament, and that he will continue to act as he may desire?

MR. TREVELYAN: I have inquired into this matter, and find that the newspaper account of the transaction is incorrect in important particulars. The head constable acted under the directions of his superior officers, who had reason to believe that the concert was being held for an illegal purpose. The head constable was ordered to take the names of those attending. He denies that he used any of the language attributed to him. There is no foundation whatever for the statement that he threatened to shoot the people. He conversation with Eugene O'Brien. He did tell Michael O'Brien

had no

sufficient importance to justify me in putting it without Notice. It is this. There is a rumour very current that there is another letter which was submitted to the Cabinet with reference to the Kilmainham Treaty—a letter written by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford County (Mr. Justin M'Carthy)and that that letter was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and by him submitted to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That is the report which is current. If that is correct, I feel quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will at once say so; and if it is incorrect, this will give him an opportunity of denying it. But if it is correct, I shall ask him whether that letter cannot be produced and laid upon the Table?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask him whether he is not aware that there are at least 100 other rumours current about the Kilmainham Treaty; and whether he will take the trouble to answer each and every one of them?

MR. GLADSTONE: The course which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government on this subject has been uniform from the first. But, in the first place, I would say that I do not think it is quite courteous on the part of the hon. and gallant Baronet to put a Question about the "Kilmainham Treaty," he knowing perfectly well that I have

[No answer was given to these Ques

MR. G. W. ELLIOT said, the question of the "Kilmainham Treaty" had become so important that he begged to give Notice that he would ask the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) if on the occasion of his visit to Kilmainham he was not accompanied by another Gentleman?

ORDER OF THE DAY.

19:0:c

PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND)
BILL.-[BILL 157.]

many times denied that any Treaty, | cause of the delay in the release of those compact, understanding, or whatever he not so classified? may like to call it, exists, or ever has existed, between Her Majesty's Govern- tions.] ment and the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The hon. and gallant Baronet is quite welcome to retain his own private opinion on the matter; but it is not courteous, becoming, or Parliamentary on his part to put Questions to me in regard to the "Kilmainham Treaty." With regard to the subject itself, the ground taken by Her Majesty's Government has always been this-that the Act of Parliament committed exclusively to Her Majesty's Government the business of imprisoning and of releasing under the Protection of Person and Property Act, and that it was no part of our duty or business at all to produce to the House of Commons the evidence upon which we proceeded either in imprisoning or in releasing. Now, it is out of no want of courtesy to the hon. and gallant Baronet that I am obliged to adhere to that ground, because I feel that that was the sense and spirit of the Act of Parliament, which I am not at liberty to disregard. Any attempt on our part to have produced the evidence upon which we proceeded would have been, in my opinion-and in the opinion, I think, of my Colleagues-an attempt to carry over to Parliament a responsibility which was entirely and exclusively our own. For that reason, I am not disposed to enter at all upon the discussion of the subject which the hon. and gallant Baronet has opened; and if he desires the production of a document, which, I think, it is no part of our duty to produce, it is not for me in the least to say to whom he should address his application.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will feel that it was from no want of courtesy that I addressed the Question to him. I heard the rumour. I thought it an important Question, and I put it direct. The right hon. Gentleman has not denied that there was such a correspondence; but he referred me to somebody else, and I should like to know to whom I should apply to have the letter produced?

MR. SEXTON inquired how many persons were now in custody, how many were classified by the Government as associated with crime, and what was the

Mr. Gladstone

(Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Glad-
stone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor
General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland,
Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 12th June.]
[TENTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

PART II.

OFFENCES AGAINST THIS ACT. Clause 5 (Riots and other offences). MR. CHARLES RUSSELL said, the

Amendment he had to propose was to omit Sub-section (b) of this clause. The Sub-section provided that

"Within six months after the execution of of any house or land, every person who takes or any writ of possession, or decree for possession, held possession of such house, or land, or any part thereof, without the consent of the owner, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act." This provision would turn what might be a mere act of residence into an offence punishable by six months' imprisonment. Any member of a family, or anyone in attendance upon a family, who took possession of a house, or land, temporarily, for purposes of shelter, from which the tenant had been evicted, would come within the meaning of the clause. He did not imagine that the Government intended to make such an act of trespass a crime punishable by six months' imprisonment; and if they insisted upon the clause it ought to be qualified by being applied to cases of wrongful possession. There certainly should be some notice to a person who might have

committed an act of trespass that if he unreasonably withheld possession he would be guilty of a crime. A case might arise of a person, who, quite innocently, took shelter in a part of premises from which a man had been evicted, and it would not be right to bring such a person within the power of the section.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out Sub-section (b).-(Mr. Charles Russell.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (b) stand part of the Clause."

dence that the taking possession had been accompanied by actual violence. It was obvious that unless a man was seen to take forcible possession, it was difficult to prove that he had broken down a door or a fence, although the door might have been securely made up before, and although there was no dispute that he had been acting in defiance of the law, which had given possession to someone else. The offence was the outcome of the lawlessness which at present existed in Ireland. He might instance what had happened in the Province of Ulster, as showing the danger of allowing it to be committed with impunity. In 1880 there was only one offence in Ulster of this kind; in 1881 there were 12 cases out of a total of 65 in the whole of Ireland; and in the five months of the present year there had been eight cases out of 19, notwithstanding that within a quarter of a century previous to 1880 there had been only 30 cases of holding forcible possession in the whole of the country. In point of fact, it came to thisthat the law at present was not sufficient to deal with these cases; and the Government, who were well qualified to judge, were of opinion that this alteration was necessary, in order to give efficacy to the Act. It should be remembered that although the punishment of the offence was a sharp one, nobody would incur it who did not wilfully expose himself to it. He, therefore, hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON said, the question really at issue was whether the law of Ireland should be observed, because it was the law, or whether it should be disregarded with impunity, wherever it did not happen to fall in with the views of a part of the community. It had frequently occurred of late that a tenant, on whom a notice of ejectment had been executed, and whose equity of redemption had long expired, had resumed possession of the holding and made use of it in defiance of the law; and the proposal now was that such an offender, instead of being charged at Quarter Sessions for taking and holding forcible possession, should be summarily tried for what might be called a trespass in contempt of the law. The necessity for this depended upon whether the offence had been a common one, and whether the law, as it now existed, was found adequate to deal with it. He found, from the Returns sub- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR mitted to the House, that up to the year IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, 1880 the taking and holding forcible pos- the reason why the Government could session of property was almost an un- not accept this Amendment was this known thing in Ireland; but in 1880-The object of the clause was to and 1881 no less than 147 cases had occurred, and of these 113 had gone entirely unpunished. He believed, further, that in a considerable proportion of the 34 convictions, the tenants forcibly holding possession had incurred no penalty beyond having been required to come up for judgment when called upon, because the Crown Solicitor, knowing that there was very little chance of obtaining a verdict if the case went to a jury, was prepared to accept a compromise. If the case had gone to a jury, it was almost certain that a jury would have acquitted, in face of the evidence, or have disagreed. There was also a great difficulty in obtaining evi

strengthen the law. It was found that the ordinary law was defective, and was brought into contempt. What was it that occurred? He was able to speak from personal knowledge, and what occurred was this. A decree was obtained in the Civil Court for ejectment for the non-payment of rent, and it was executed. Possession was given up to the landlord, and, apparently, everything was perfectly regular. The place was fastened up and made secure, or some caretaker was put in. The caretaker who had been put in happened to go away for a time, and the next day all the family who had been displaced went back again to the holding; and there

was no power of dealing with them, be- | left to the discretion of two stipendiary cause the Civil Court which had issued magistrates who were landlords, and the execution could not deal with the probably with a dash of militaryism case as one of contempt of Court. In added. It was absurd, therefore, to say regard to the Superior Courts, a writ that the penalty of hard labour would taken out there was executed in the be optional, because anybody who knew same way, and possession was given up. anything of the tribunal would know The result of that was that the power of that the stipendiary magistrates would the writ was fully expended and the inflict the heaviest penalties the law execution was exhausted; and the Supe- allowed them to inflict. It was very rior Court had no means in the world of difficult to understand the clause as to dealing with the person who had broken the effect of taking and holding forcible the law, unless an expensive process was possession. The clause, as proposed by resorted to of appealing again to the the Government, was a very elastic and Court for the punishment of the person dangerous one. They spoke of taking who had treated the order with con- and holding possession as an alternative, tempt. These were obvious reasons why without any element of an offence in there should be a change in the law. it at all. Now, he found that the offence He hoped that hon. Gentlemen below as specified in the Act of Parliament was the Gangway would see that this was a provided for in a different way-it was matter which ought to be dealt with; by taking and holding forcible possesand the Government proposed to deal sion. with it by making it an offence punishable summarily. The maximum punishment was six months' imprisonment; but it was a maximum punishment, and need not necessarily be imposed in all

cases.

MR. HEALY: It is to be accompanied by hard labour.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, the hard labour was only optional, nor was it likely that the Court would inflict it in a case in which it was not well deserved. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) had put the case of a person who was acting innocently-that was, a man who took possession without knowing that he was committing any offence at all.

That was the case which appeared to have been contemplated by an Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Hereford (Mr. Reid), who proposed to insert the word "knowingly." He saw no objection to the insertion of this Amendment; but he certainly thought that the person who did that knowingly committed an offence.

MR. SEXTON said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must imagine that the people of Ireland were extremely innocent in regard to the manner in which the law was administered in that country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the penalty of hard labour was an optional penalty; but they did not forget the fact that it was

The Attorney General for Ireland

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, there were two alternative offences known to the law-namely, taking and holding possession, and another taking and holding forcible possession.

MR. SEXTON regretted that the Government had not considered it desirable to tabulate any of these offences, except the graver one of taking and holding forcible possession. They were now inventing, for the purposes of this Coercion Act, a new offence, a kind of doublebarrelled offence, of taking and holding without force. His own opinion was that they were adding to the existing offence something that was not called for by the necessities of the case. There was not shown a necessity for this provision. The offence had decreased under the ordinary law. In the year 1880, the number of cases of taking and holding forcible possession in the whole year was under 82, and the number of convictions in respect of these offences was 12-that was to say, that in the year 1880, out of 82 cases there was only one case out of seven in which a jury convicted. Last year did that class of offence increase? It certainly did not, because the number fell from 82 to 65, and the convictions were 22. He commended to the attention of the Committee this extraordinary fact that offences of this class fell from 82 in the year before last to 65 in last year, whereas the convictions in 1880 were one out of seven, the convictions last year were one