NEW CLAUSES.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)

stated, that he thought the Ayes had it, and his decision being challenged, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and Four Members only having stood up, the Chairman said as the Members voting for the Amendment did not amount to 20, he declared that the Ayes had it.

§ MR. BIGGAR (in the absence of the hon. Member for Wexford, Mr. HEALY)

begged to move the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Friend, and which provided that no offence under the Act should be prosecuted after the lapse of a month.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that it was impossible to accept an Amendment giving impunity to the offender, who could evade justice for a month.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said that there was one matter it was very important they ought to know, and that was the New Rules under which they were now acting. These which had been stated to the House were obviously very valuable Rules, and would advance the progress of Business; but he thought that they ought to know what the whole of the Rules were, and that they should be made acquainted with them when the Chairman was in the Chair. He would, therefore, move to report Progress. He took this course in order that what was taking place now might not be made a precedent for future action. He felt very strongly that it was necessary that they should have before them the New Rules, so that they might know whether they were acting within them or not. He understood that the Speaker had laid the Rules upon the Table of the House, and all he desired was that they should be read from the Chair.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am under the apprehension that the New Rule for the guidance of the Chairman, as proposed by the Speaker, has already been read. I do not think that there would have been anything unreasonable in the demand of the right hon. Gentleman if it had been made at the proper time. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It was made.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote) certainly did rise, and asked that any Rule that was new should be read, and that was done. At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, directions were given by the Speaker to the Clerk at the Table to read the one new Rule which has been added to those framed by him last year during the period of Urgency, and now revived. I do not know whether I am right, but my own impression is that it would be hardly right for the Chairman to read Rules, not only affecting the Committee, but also the whole House. The proceedings which took place at the instance of the right hon. Member for North Devon appeared to be satisfactory to the House; and then the Business of the House was allowed to pro- 1404 ceed. I submit that it would be hardly regular to interrupt the Business of the Committee now for the purpose of reading the New Rules now lying on the Table of the House. If a mistake has been made, I think that it would be better to pass it over, and not insist on reporting Progress.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

If this were merely a question of Order I should not raise any objection; but it is a question of the convenience of the Committee, and without in the slightest degree wishing to interpose any kind of delay to the proceedings of the Committee, I would ask if a copy of the Rules could not be supplied to it, or that the New Rules should be read by the Clerk at the Table? I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and, perhaps, in the end it would save time, if the Clerk were instructed to read those Rules which applied to the Business of the Committee.

§ MR. METGE

said, he thought that it would assist the Committee if the Rules were read carefully over. Personally, he had very little knowledge of what the Rules were, and standing as he did in a hostile House, with a majority against him of 100 to 1, it was important that he should understand on what grounds they were entitled to act so far as the New Rules went. He was ready to bow to any point of Order laid down by the Chair, and he only desired to fight in a fair way, without following the example of hon. Members opposite.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that he had gathered from the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote) that it was only the Rules regulating the proceedings of the Committee which were referred to, and in that case it would only be a regular proceeding to have them read.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)

It would be regular to read the Rules relating to the Business of the Committee as distinct from the Business of the House; but it would be convenient, in the first instance, that the Motion to report Progress should be withdrawn.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that he was quite ready to withdraw the Motion.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)

having stated that he thought the Noes had it, and his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places; and no Member having stood up, the Chairman said: As no hon. Member has risen in his place, I declare that the Noes have it.

§ MR. METGE

rose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether, when the Chairman had called a division, he was within his right in asking hon. Members to stand up in their places? On a 1407 former occasion, when that course was taken the House was cleared.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)

I have followed the same practice in both cases.

§ MR. CALLAN

said, that he wished to move the Amendment to this New Clause which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and which was as follows:—As an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's New Clause 19, line 13, after "conviction," insert— And the proceedings shall take place in open Court in like manner as provided by the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter ninety-three, in the case of proceedings under the summary jurisdiction of justice. At present, while great powers were given to the magistrates, without what the Attorney General for Ireland called the good or Common Law of the land, as construed by the magistrates, it was often the practice for them to adjudicate illegally, and not in open Court. A new class of offenders was created by the Bill; and for the convenience of the public, and for the good working of the Act, it was desirable that the law should be administered in open Court, as a guarantee that it was properly administered. He hoped that the Attorney General for Ireland, even if he would not agree to the exact terms of the Amendment, would adopt some Amendment in the spirit of it.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that the New Clause already provided for the publicity of the proceedings, which would be similar to proceedings under the Petty Sessions Acts.

§ MR. CALLAN

intimated that after that assurance by the Attorney General for Ireland he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that he fully appreciated the motives by which the Amendment was moved; but it was rendered unnecessary by having been provided for already by the Petty Sessions Acts which were incorporated in the clause.

§ MR. BIGGAR

said, that, after the explanation given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would ask permission to withdraw the Amendment, as its object was already secured.

§ MR. BIGGAR

then moved the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), which was as follows:—As an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's New Clause 19, line 13, after "conviction," insert— Provided that the summons to enforce the appearance of any person charged with an 1409 offence against the Act shall he served at least four clear days before the sessions at which the same is to be heard. The object of this Amendment was to enable the person summoned to appear to make the proper arrangements in regard to his attendance. If he only received a very short notice to appear before the Petty Sessions, it might be held that he was staying away intentionally, and a warrant might be issued for his apprehension.

§ MR. TREVELYAN

said that this also was an unnecessary Amendment. All the details of the clause were in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Court under the Petty Sessions Act of 1851. That Act provided that a notice should be given before the hearing, and of the reasonableness of the time, the Court itself would be the best judge.

§ MR. CALLAN

said, that after the assurance given by the Chief Secretary that the procedure under this Act would be given by the Petty Sessions Acts now in force, he would advise his hon. Friend not to move any Amendment relating to that procedure. The Irish Members would accept the pledge that all the procedure under the Bill would be given by the Petty Sessions Acts.

§ MR. TREVELYAN

said, that the new clause which the Government had laid upon the Table of the House set forth, in the most precise words, that the whole proceedings under it would be governed by the Petty Sessions Act of 1851; but there were certain details in the clause which in other respects might be governed in another manner. The observation which he had made as to the proceedings under the clause was a general observation, and was not to be taken as binding the Government to every detail of the Petty Session Acts which might be contrary to the provisions of their own clause. This parti- 1410 cular matter was one of the details which came under the Petty Sessions Act of 1851.

§ MR. METGE

said that, of course, the Irish Members quite understood that the Chief Secretary did not intend to place under the operation of the Petty Sessions Acts details which the clause expressly excluded from those Acts. He was sorry that the Government had not accepted this Amendment, or some more definite promise had not been given in regard to it, because the rules of the Petty Sessions Courts on this subject were liable to aid arbitrary variation. He thought that it was necessary that the accused person should have as long a notice as possible. The Act would be most drastic in its form, and for that reason the defendant would naturally demand a longer notice than might be considered reasonable in the case of a man who was merely charged with being drunk and brawling in the streets. Many persons who were brought under the Act would be persons whose occupation would require that they should be moving about the country, such as laborers going from farm to farm, and artizans journeying from town to town. These were the classes of persons who would be charged under the Act, and he thought that there ought to be some extended form of notice given to them. He trusted that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to see his way to making the clause a little more definite in regard to the arrangements for notice. He remarked that the Chief Secretary had already stated that the magistrates would be governed on this point by the Act of 1851, the passing of which he well remembered. It would be impracticable, however, to say that there should be no variation from the Act of 1851. In the present state of Ireland, with secret societies acting in a murderous manner, it might be necessary in certain cases to vary the procedure, and the Government would be justified in varying the terms and details of the clauses so far as the procedure was to be governed by the Act of 1851. It was the duty of the Government to adapt the clause so that it might meet the special emergencies of the time.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that he wished to move an Amendment before 1411 the one that stood next upon the Paper. The Amendment was to insert, after the words "two resident magistrates," the words— One of whom shall he a barrister at law of not less than seven years' standing. In moving that Amendment, he wished to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson), who seemed to be the only Member of the Government left in charge of the Bill, to the fact that a pledge had been given on the part of the Government that when this new clause was inserted, one of the two Resident Magistrates who would have to try cases under these Summary Jurisdiction Clauses would be a barrister. They had had a good deal of discussion on this matter, and he had more than once since the clause had been on the Paper appealed to the Government on the subject. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would admit that he (Mr. Labouchere) was perfectly right in stating that upon this point a pledge had been given by the Government. He believed that it was within the recollection of the Committee that there was a distinct pledge to that effect, and it would not be the fulfillment of the pledge to say that the Government would do that wherever it was possible. It was most essential that the decisions of the magistrates should command the respect of the Irish people. Very extensive powers were in trusted to them by the Bill, and it was admitted by the Government that many of the existing Resident Magistrates were not very well learned in the law. It was upon that ground that the Government proposed to associate with those who were expected to administer justice persons who had some knowledge of the law. The Committee ought to insist, as far as they could, upon the pledge of the Government being carried out substantially in the whole, and should not be satisfied with the assurance that, wherever it was possible, one Resident Magistrate would be a lawyer.

§ MR. TREVELYAN

said that the Amendment had considerable importance in itself, and also on account of what passed at the earlier stage of the Committee. Allusion had been made to a statement of the Prime Minister which was undoubtedly a very important statement, and one which had been made after careful consultation with those of his Colleagues who were interested in the Bill, and acquainted with the circumstances of Ireland. The statement of the Prime Minister was to the effect that when two Resident Magistrates were sitting, one of them should have had a legal training. He was not able to quote the exact words of the Prime Minister, but he was willing to admit that the statement was to that effect. It was quite obvious however, that a statement of that sort must be taken to mean that it would be carried out to the very utmost extent that was possible. What the Prime Minister wished to express was that he and his Colleagues regarded it as a most important point that one of the Resident Magistrates should have had a legal training. Since then the Prime Minister had. been in communication with Lord Spencer—in very frequent communication with him—as to the method by which this object should be accomplished; but he must remind the Committee that he (Mr. Trevelyan) had subsequently made a statement which was received, he thought, with thorough acquiescence by the whole Committee, and made also at a time when the Committee was very full of the effect that on no account did the Government intend to place in the Bill any arrangements or regulations with regard to the magistrates who were to sit in the Court. But he further stated that this was a mere Executive and Administrative matter, which would be more readily carried out by Executive and Administrative means. The Government were extremely anxious to carry out this point, and they intended to carry it out as far as it possibly could be carried out. That was the only pledge which the Government could possibly give. In order to have one of the Resident Magistrates a lawyer, it was obvious that this meant appointing lawyers Resident Magistrates. It was pretty certain that within a reasonable length of time, indeed soon, a certain number of legal appointments 1413 would be made to the list of Resident Magistrates. The Government had determined, as far as possible, to make new appointments among the Legal Profession. He said as far as possible, because the Government could not bind themselves, even at the risk of losing their position as a Government, to anything more. While they would choose the lawyer by preference, they would not take a man, because he was a lawyer, who would not make an efficient Resident Magistrate. Then, again, as regarded the question of seven years' standing; upon that point the Government were still more unwilling to be bound. It was very possible that a man might be a very good lawyer who had not been seven years at the Bar; and it was possible, although he did not speak on authority, that a man might be a very bad lawyer, even after he had been more than seven years at the Bar. It was not necessary to go further for an illustration than to state that some of the very best magistrates in India were young men who had not been members of the Legal Profession as long as seven years. It was very desirable that one of the Resident Magistrates sitting on the Bench should have had legal experience; and he might instance Mr. Felix M'Carthy, who was in every respect qualified to sit as a local magistrate, although he was not a barrister of seven years' standing. He (Mr. Trevelyan) could only repeat the pledge that the Government would do their best to secure this end, for they were as anxious as any hon. Member on the Committee. They could not, however, bind themselves to commit themselves in every instance. That being so he trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. M'COAN

expressed great disappointment at what he had heard from the Chief Secretary. He (Mr. M'Coan) had placed upon the Paper an Amendment to the 19th clause as it originally stood, which provided that the tribunal of summary jurisdiction should consist of one of the Resident Magistrates and two ordinary Justices of the Peace. That Amendment was placed upon the Paper before the Prime Minister made his statement directly and in terms pledging the Government to provide that one of the two Resident Magistrates should be a lawyer. He had recognized at once the superiority of such a tribunal to that 1414 which was proposed by his Amendment, and he had accordingly taken his Amendment off the Paper. He had no wish to use language stronger than the case required; but he thought that the Committee had great reason to complain that the pledge of the Government had been departed from. They were now told that the pledge of the Prime Minister merely meant the expression of the intentions of those who were administering the Bill, to carry out this principle at their discretion. Although the Chief Secretary did subsequently make the statement he had referred to, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would go to the length of saying that any statement made by him ought to wipe out a previous pledge given by the Prime Minister. He, therefore, thought that the Irish Members had just cause to complain, not perhaps of the breach of faith, but of something very much like it. The right hon. Gentleman had made out no case whatever for this departure from the original pledge of the Government It could not be pretended that the Irish Bar could not provide an abundance of gentlemen well qualified for the posts which were to be created by the new tribunals. In Dublin he could lay his hand on 20 qualified lawyers, or barristers, if the right hon. Gentleman preferred that word. Not 20, but 50, could be found in the Pour Courts of Dublin who were thoroughly well qualified to act if the Government would accept them. Therefore, there was no pretence for saying that men could not be found; and, further, there was no pretence for stating that men of that kind would not be better than the persons who now constituted the majority of the Resident Magistrates.

§ MR. GIBSON

presumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had some record before him of what had actually occurred. His (Mr. Gibson's) own recollection was somewhat different. The undertaking amounted to this—that steps would be taken to insure that legal assistance should be given to the two magistrates who were to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. That could be satisfied in either of two ways—either by having as part of the tribunal a barrister, or to give legal assistance to the tribunal when especially required to do so on legal points. He did not think that the latter method was at all 1415 desirable. It was not desirable to enable the tribunal to shunt the responsibility off their own shoulders on to somebody else. It would be wiser to compel the tribunal, according to its own lights, to exercise this jurisdiction, and to be responsible for the exercise of it. At the same time, he had no wish to press the Government too far on the question, although, he admitted that the Amendment raised a serious and important question as to the constitution of the tribunal. It was not, however, desirable to unduly increase the number of officeholders of the country. There was a substantial number of Resident Magistrates in the country already. Some of them were men of high character and advanced in years—men who would be likely to seek the retirement they had thoroughly earned. If something could be done in the way of recognizing that most delicate topic "allowances," perhaps the difficulty might be got over. All public officers were paid by salary, or by that method which was called "allowances." He thought the Government had done right in announcing that in regard to future requirements, and at an early date, they would bear in mind the necessity of appointing legal men. Perhaps in some cases the lawyer, if solely trained in the profession of a lawyer, would not be the best man to exercise summary jurisdiction. If such a man had been long practicing at the Bar, he was apt to take too technical a view of questions which ought to be decided, to some extent, by the exercise of vigorous common sense, getting rid, as far as possible, of technicalities. Of course, it was desirable that in many instances there should have been a legal training. But the members of his Profession who would be best fitted for the post were those who were not likely to have had to deal with too much technicality. He, therefore, thought that it would be improper to limit the selection to barristers of seven years' standing. It was not desirable that they should establish any hard-and-fast limit. He thought that it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.

§ Mr. METGE

said, he was of opinion that one of the arguments employed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was a very strong argument in favor of the Amendment. 1416 The right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the tribunal being constituted in such a way that it would be able to shunt its responsibility upon other persons. But that was exactly what would happen if the two Resident Magistrates were military men, and that was a common occurrence in the jurisdiction of Courts of Petty Sessions as now constituted. The result was that the Resident Magistrates were entirely at a loss upon a point of law, and they had to refer to the Petty Sessions Clerk. In almost every case the Petty Sessions Clerk was the legal adviser of the Resident Magistrates.

§ MR. GIBSON

remarked that the Law Adviser in Dublin Castle was an adviser of the magistrates in matters of law.

§ MR. METGE

said, that he was quite aware of that; but what he meant was that in many cases the actual jurisdiction was vested in the Petty Sessions Clerk. He had often seen these Courts decide upon a simple announcement made to them by the Petty Sessions Clerk on a legal point. He had no wish to depreciate the capacity of these Petty Sessions Clerks, who were very well educated, and a very good class of men; but it would be a terrible thing to see such administrative functions as those which the present Bill created, and applicable to the people of Ireland, transferred into the hands of the Petty Sessions Clerks. That was a statement which he thought would be borne out by numberless facts; but, apart from that, there was another great objection the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have to two members of the Court being composed of military men. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken very forcibly of the advantage to be derived from having the services of lawyers who were under a standing of seven years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that they would be free from that encumberment of technicality which might hamper the minds of maturer lawyers. Now, this freedom from technicality was just the danger they had to guard against. One great danger of the Court was that it might proceed in too arbitrary a fashion. The Irish Members had no wish to see this Court turned into a drumhead Court Martial; and if it was to he under the control of two Resident 1417 Magistrates, or under the control of one military Resident Magistrate and another magistrate whose legal mind was free from technicality, there would be a danger that the law would be administered with unnecessary harshness. For this reason he should press strongly upon the Committee the propriety of accepting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). It must be remembered that this was a Court of the very first importance. It was to have conferred upon it a power of summary jurisdiction such, as no other Court possessed. It was to have power over the liberty and action of a very large portion of the Irish people; and what was the answer of the Government when they were questioned by the hon. Member for Northampton to lay it down as part of the Bill that it was necessary that there should be a legal adviser in the Court? Their answer was that the Committee must trust to the Government to do their best. His hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) said that he had lost faith in the Government. Now, he (Mr. Metge) had never had any faith in them at all, and should like to see the pledge they had made in the bond. For that reason he hoped that the hon. Member for Northampton would divide the Committee. The Government told them that they would do their best, and that they hoped that very soon they would be able to have the Court composed, to a large extent, of lawyers; but surely they had had some months to pass this Bill through the House; they had had plenty of time to get their Court ready. As to not being able to obtain men, that was simply absurd. There was a plethora of lawyers in Ireland who were men of standing, and there would be no difficulty in obtaining the services of any number of legal magistrates. What he feared was that men like Major Bond and Mr. Clifford Lloyd might be called upon to sit in cool, calm judgment on men who might be brought before the Court on trivial cases of "Boycotting." He had known something of the action of Mr. Clifford Lloyd during the last winter, and he knew the feeling that existed against him in the West of Ireland. That feeling was that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the Chief Secretary for Ireland last winter, and that the nominal Chief Secretary was under 1418 the thumb of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and that Mr. Clifford Lloyd ruled Ireland with a rod of iron. He did not think it was right that the decision of cases which would arise under the Act should be left to a bench of military martinets, with no legal training, and unfitted by education or social requirements to exercise the functions that would be in trusted to them. For this reason, although he knew and felt that all he had said would be thrown away he should consider it his duty to make a stand against what he believed to be one of the worst features of this damnable Coercion Act.

§ MR. FIRTH

said, he thought that the question involved in the Amendment was one of very serious importance. The Bill they were about to pass was one which would involve the greatest care and technical knowledge, and technical habits of mind, to construe. He did not think that the construction of the Act should be left to men who had had no legal training whatever. There were rules of evidence in existence, many of which were framed in order to protect, to a large extent, persons who were charged before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction—such as the exclusion, of hearsay evidence; but if the decision of the Court was to be left to men who were unfamiliar with the rules of evidence, there would be much less guarantee than Parliament ought to have for securing a fair trial. He hoped that the Government would accede to the Amendment, as he was unwilling to lose one of the most important guarantees for the administration of the Act in a fair and proper spirit.

§ MR. MOORE

said, he believed that this was one of the most important questions that had come before the Committee, and he must certainly say that ever since the Bill was read a second time he had been under the impression that these extraordinary powers were only to be exercised by men who had had a judicial training. He had heard with regret the statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the other day, that there was a possibility of leaving the jurisdiction under the Bill to the ordinary magistrates. At no time was he disposed to indulge in condemnation of officials who desired to do their duty, and much less was he disposed to do so under the present very trying cir- 1419 cumstances. But if this Bill was to carry weight with it, and have any practical effect, every strength that could be given to the administration of its summary jurisdiction should be given to it. The Bill was to be used indiscriminately both in peaceful and disturbed districts, and the administration would be inherent in any bench constituted by two magistrates. If that were so, and one of them happened to be a man without legal training, the result would simply be calamitous. He hoped that the clause would not be worked without some such restriction as that which was now proposed. He believed that the adoption of the Amendment would permit it to be worked judiciously, quietly, calmly, and with increased strength. He had no wish to stand in the way of the most severe punishment of every odious act of outrage; for he thought that there was no condemnation strong enough for such offences. He hoped that the powers of the Bill would be reserved for such severe offences, or they would only create irritation, and would result in their gaols being crammed over and over again with persons against whom the provisions of the Bill were not really directed.

MR. GLADSTONE

said they had before them an Amendment which amounted to a stipulation that a person should be appointed as one of the magistrates referred to in the sub-section, who should exercise a separate jurisdiction. To that Amendment Her Majesty's Government were not disposed to accede. He thought, on the whole, that it should be left to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to give effect to the principle which Her Majesty's Government were disposed to recognize—namely, that one of the Resident Magistrates ought to be possessed of the requisite amount of legal knowledge, apart from the other qualifications for the office. While regarding that principle as reasonable, he did not think it was so satisfactorily recognized in the Amendment as in the way which he should propose. The Government would, on the whole, prefer that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant without being specifically mentioned in the Bill; but, at the same time, if it were the wish of the Committee that it should be so mentioned, they would not object to insert words to the effect that one of the 1420 two persons who exercised this jurisdiction should be a person "of the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant shall be satisfied." The mere fact of a barrister having been called to the Bar seven years previously was really no security whatever that he was possessed of the profound legal knowledge and legal habits of mind which it was desirable to secure. In order to meet that desire they were willing that the words suggested should be inserted, although, as he had before mentioned, the Government would, on the whole, prefer not to include them in the Bill.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as it was clearer than that of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, which left it uncertain as to whether it would always be the case that one of the magistrates should be a person learned in the law.

§ MR. BIGGAR

said, he had read a statement last week to the effect that three new Resident Magistrates had been appointed to Ireland. He did not know whether it was the case; but he had the impression that two of the three magistrates so appointed might be military men. He therefore took this opportunity of asking whether that was a correct view of the appointments alleged to have been made, and whether it was in accordance with the rule recently laid down—namely, that the persons to be appointed as Resident Magistrates should belong to the Legal Profession? He was strongly of opinion that barristers with legal training gained in the Quarter Sessions Courts would make much better Resident Magistrates than the men hitherto appointed. He was afraid, if the system of appointing military men continued, there would be no chance of any such alteration as the right hon. Gentleman had shadowed forth.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he thought it better to dispose of the point at once which had reference to the legal qualifications of the Resident Magistrates, and, therefore, begged to move the insertion of the provision indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Primo Minister.

§ MR. METGE

said he had an Amendment to propose which he thought Her Majesty's Government would hardly refuse to accept. His proposal, were it adopted, would not materially alter the constitution of the Court, although it would, of course, alter it to a certain extent. The magistrates in Ireland had not a large amount of public sentiment in favor of their jurisdiction; yet he was bound to say that the greater the number of members the greater would be the amount of confidence which the Court would secure. He thought the Court should be composed to some extent of men who took the popular view in politics, and should not be restricted to men of one shade of political opinion. There were a number of Roman Catholic magistrates, for instance, in each county, who in politics were Whigs, but who, nevertheless, would be likely to secure for their decisions a certain amount of public confidence, inasmuch as the people would regard them as likely to be bound by what was considered to be fair dealing as between man and man. These gentlemen, he thought, might with advantage be members of the Court, because he regarded any alteration as an improvement which tended to modify the harshness of the judicatory system proposed to be established by the clause. He repeated that his suggestion would not materially alter the constitution of the Court; and, further, the decision of the Court would almost invariably be that delivered by the Resident Magistrates, particularly as the Prime Minister had consented to the principle that one of these should be a man of legal knowledge. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government to agree to the Amendment he was about to move, because it would tend to create a feeling amongst the people that some small measure of justice might be looked for at the hands of the Court.

§ MR. TREVELYAN

said, the clause creating summary jurisdiction in cases of intimidation, riots, assaults, and so forth, had been passed by the Committee distinctly on the understanding that the Court should be composed of two Resident Magistrates. If the Government had framed the Bill so as to include all the Justices, and if the great majority of the House had approved the Bill in that shape, then any Amendment excluding those Justices would on a clause of this nature have been vigorously opposed by the Government. There were arguments for and against the Amendment of the hon. Member. There would, for instance, be a certain value in associating the non-professional elements of the Bench in these important decisions, but the principle of the clause having been agreed to, the Government could not alter the lines upon which it was drawn and, at the same time, keep faith with the House. For these reasons the Government were unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.

§ COLONEL COLTHURST

pointed out that no more unpopular Amendment could have been proposed than that of the hon. Member for Meath. He believed that the ordinary magistrates in Ireland did not desire to administer this Bill, and he was quite certain that the public opinion in the country did not wish them to have anything to do with it. He was compelled to say that his hon. Friend opposite had acted in a most inconsistent manner in proposing to appoint to this office a class of magistrates against whose appointment he and his Friends had always contended.

§ MR. FINDLATER

said, he thought it would be an unpopular thing to introduce ordinary Justices of the Peace on the trial of summary jurisdiction cases.

MR. R. POWER

agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) that the local magistrates had a great objection to being made the instruments for carrying out this Act. It was desirable that the local magistrates should not have anything to do with the summary conviction of persons for offences under 1423 this Act which occurred in their neighborhood.

§ MR. BIGGAR

said he was surprised that Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), who knew the Irish magistrates well, should make so unfavorable a report of them as to say that they were ashamed to have anything to do with the administration of this Act. It seemed rather a strong argument against the Amendment. Nevertheless, he thought that the local magistrates should be associated on the Bench with the Resident Magistrates; and he should, therefore, support the Amendment before the Committee.

§ MR. METGE

rose in his place.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)

What is the object of the hon. Member's rising—the hon. Member having spoken once? The hon. Member has a right to explain, but must not enter into any argument.

§ MR. METGE

If the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County were only expressing his own view—

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)

Order! Order! That is not an explanation.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)

said, the Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Wicklow, having reference to a subject which was decided upon by the Committee at the previous Sitting, could not be put.

§ MR. BIGGAR

said, in the absence of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil), he would move the next Amendment standing in his name. It appeared to him that this Act was of so stringent a character that there ought to be a right of appeal in all cases of summary jurisdiction. He was unable to see how the Government could resist that proposal consistently with the desire they had expressed that no innocent persons should suffer injustice in consequence of this Act. If the party were guilty against whom the decision were given, the Court of Appeal would, of course, confirm the decision; on the other hand, if the believed that the decision was wrong, it would be only reasonable that the accused should escape punishment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would see the justice of 1424 according the right of appeal in all cases of summary conviction.

§ MR. FINDLATER

said, he thought that the discussion which had taken place with regard to the constitution of the Magisterial Bench, showed that there was nothing unreasonable in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan, to the effect that there should be an appeal in every case of imprisonment under this Act. The Committee would observe that not only was the right of appeal denied in cases of imprisonment for one month and under, but that the right to apply for a writ of certiorari was also taken away. He thought there ought, in every case, to be the right of appeal, because it was probable that under the clause as it stood a magistrate might, in the majority of cases, inflict a penalty of one month's imprisonment with hard labor, knowing that his decision would not be reviewed by a Superior Court.

§ MR. HOPWOOD

said he trusted the Government would agree to this Amendment. There was a good precedent for doing so in the English Summary Jurisdiction Act, which had now been a year in operation. Under that Act, in all cases of imprisonment without the option of paying a fine the right of appeal accrued. So far from that Act having led to an excessive number of appeals, he believed there had been exceedingly few. It was, he thought, a strong argument in favor of the Amendment, that the power of appeal exercised an excellent influence over the Court which was subject to it. Anyone who had to exercise this jurisdiction in the face of the possibility of appeal was sure to devote himself with greater care to the administration of the law, and to observe the exigencies of the case before him with greater nicety and attention. In his opinion, this would be a very salutary Amendment to insert in the Bill, and, as he had already pointed out, there existed a good precedent in its favor in the Act to which he had referred.

§ MR. P. MARTIN

said, the Committee would observe that, the order once made under the provisions of this sub-section, it was specially provided that it could not be questioned in any way whatever. His hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) had pointed out that the clause not only took away the right of appeal, but the right of applying for a writ of certiorari. That being so it constituted an all-sufficing reason why the right of appeal should be conferred in every case of imprisonment. Now, he believed the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant must admit that it was quite as probable that mistakes might occur and injustice be inflicted in the imposition of sentences for less than one month, as in those exceeding that term—nay, the lightness of the sentence sometimes made some magistrates more careless in the conduct of a trial. The existing law in Ireland, in cases of assault, it was true, when a man was sent to prison for a month, did not give an appeal. But Government had already admitted this was a grievance, and promised to introduce a Summary Jurisdiction Act for Ireland similar to that in force in England. It must be borne in mind that imprisonment was a degrading punishment. Ought they not to try to prevent the imposition of such a stigma on a possibly innocent man? In dealing with a matter of this kind, they ought to proceed on the supposition that there were law-abiding and peaceable citizens in Ireland; and he said it was a monstrous thing if a person of this class had an unjust stigma cast upon him, that he should have no power of getting it removed by appeal to the County Court, or by application for a writ of certiorari. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to the adoption of this Amendment.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said this Amendment deserved great attention on the part of the Committee. They had it in the clause that the right of appeal from the decision of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction was not to exist in the case of a sentence of one month's imprisonment. He was quite unable to see that there was any less hardship in being imprisoned for one month than there would be in being imprisoned for six months; and the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) 1426 had pointed out with perfect truth that a stigma, would attach to anyone who had been subjected to imprisonment, however short the term might be. This was, in his opinion, a forcible argument in favor of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan. He would remind the Committee that when summary jurisdiction was first introduced, the great argument of those who resisted it was that a perfectly innocent person might be subjected to imprisonment, and the stigma attaching thereto, without the power of obtaining redress. For these reasons he said that the Amendment was entitled to the consideration of the Committee. When the Bill first came before the House it contained no provision for appeal in these cases. But the Government had since then very properly yielded on the point, and the right of appeal had, under certain circumstances, been conceded. Moreover, it was only a few minutes ago that the Government had consented to introduce words into the clause which would insure some amount of legal training on the part of one of the magistrates who would exercise this summary jurisdiction, and, therefore, he thought they should not give up the hope of obtaining the assent of the Government to the Amendment before the Committee.

§ MR. TREVELYAN

said the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had stated their views upon this subject had not stated the whole of the case. The clause, so far as the right of appeal was concerned, followed as far as it could do so, and altogether in spirit, the rules of procedure under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act of 1851. That Act conferred the right of appeal in all cases where a fine exceeding 20s. was imposed. But in this Bill no fines were created, and, therefore, the appeal given in the clause was consonant with the existing Irish law. Now if, under the existing Irish law, a man might be sent to prison for an assault for one month without appeal, where was the grievance that, under this clause of a Bill imposed under exceptional circumstances, and for alimited time, the same power should be given? He could see none. But the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had quoted the 19th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act (England), 1881, which laid down the general principle that wherever a sentence of 1427 imprisonment without the option of a fine was imposed, the accused might appeal. But it must be remembered that in England, if the accused were guilty, he would be convicted if tried by a jury, and in that case would have no right of appeal; whereas the one main cause of the stringent form of summary jurisdiction proposed in this Bill was that trial by jury had confessedly failed. That was the opinion of the House as a whole, and, therefore, the clause, which was a substitute for the English Summary Jurisdiction Act, constituted a great concession, inasmuch as an appeal was allowed in respect of five-sixths of the punishment awarded. The Government were giving the power of appeal to an extent greater than was allowed in the English Act, which was reserved only in respect of the one month's imprisonment instead of the other five. Again, it must be remembered that the right of appeal proposed in the Amendment before the Committee would bring about very serious practical inconvenience. The great object to be kept in view with regard to punishment in general, and especially with regard to crime in Ireland, which the Bill was intended to prevent, was that it should be both certain and speedy. He was told by one of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland that a light, but speedy and certain, punishment was very much more feared than a heavier punishment, which it was known would not be inflicted until after a certain lapse of time. Now, at the present time, Quarter Sessions Courts were held four or five times a-year, and the probable effect of the clause as it stood would be to require them to sit very much oftener. But the Committee would not believe that the habits and obligations of gentlemen who composed the Quarter Sessions Courts could be so altered that they should be always sitting to hear appeals, which would, if the Amendment were adopted, be always coming up to them from the Lower Summary Jurisdiction Courts. It was reasonable to believe that the delay caused would be very great, and that it would have a serious effect in diminishing that just respect for the punishments of the law which was, above all things, desired.

§ MR. METGE

said, the argument of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that 1428 the object of the Bill was to strike quickly and certainly—that was to say, if they could get hold of the criminal. But the contention of Irish Members on that side was that the Government could not do this; and, moreover, that their inability in this respect was likely to continue. Again, the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his observations upon the Amendment, had told the Committee that it would lead to inconvenience. Now, surely, there never came from the Treasury Bench such an argument in favor of refusing the right of appeal to persons convicted under an Act of Parliament. But he also said that the right of appeal was to be refused, because it was refused under the law as at present existing in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman could not believe that the Committee would for one moment take in an argument which, to the most obtuse mind, must appear fallacious. Because the existing law in Ireland refused appeal in cases of imprisonment of not more than one month, therefore that law was to be applied in this Act. But the English Act referred to was intended to meet such cases as a man not having his name on a cart, being a little drunk, committing some trifling assault, or using strong language. But persons guilty of offences under the Bill would be liable to be punished by this Court of Summary jurisdiction; probably many trivial cases would be brought before them, and he had no doubt that they would in such cases always award the highest meed of punishment possible, up to one month, in order to avoid appeals. The most trifling offences against the ordinary laws of society might be construed by the magistrates into offences against this Act. He would not enter upon the conflicting definitions of the crime of intimidation given in the Bill, because that subject in itself would afford legitimate room for occupying the time of the Committee until the Sitting was adjourned. But under that head alone many offences would be brought before the magistrates of the most trivial character. The Committee was familiar with such cases as little boys looking in an intimidating manner at policeman, and as if they were going to be impudent to them. The right hon. Gentleman smiled at this, but it was no laughing matter to the little boys who were punished. The cases he 1429 referred to would, of course, be described as extreme; but he was contending that the scope of the section was very wide, and that unless the Amendment were adopted, the magistrates in similar cases would have the strongest inducement to inflict a month's, or less than a month's imprisonment, in order that their decisions might not be reviewed by a higher Court. He feared that in the administration of this clause the magistrates would lay aside the principle, which was said to be the proud boast of the English Criminal Law, that an accused person should have the benefit of the doubt, and be inclined to say—"This man, having offended once, is likely to offend again; we will not give him the benefit of the doubt; we will give him a month's imprisonment." He contended that the appeal asked for could do no harm. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant said it would lead to delay; but, in reply to that, he would point out that to a large extent the right of appeal would not be acted upon, except in cases where the decision of the magistrates was flagrantly unjust. No solicitor would take up the case of a poor boy without there were friends at his back who could pay, and certainly not merely for the purpose of trying to evade justice. The Amendment would do no more than allow decisions to be reviewed where there was a good case, and which, if they were not reviewed, would be regarded with the greatest disgust by the whole community in Ireland. He thought the point was one which the Government might reasonably concede. When he considered what was to be the constitution of the Court, and the arbitrary character of the functions which were to be exercised by the magistrates who composed it—when he considered that it was a Court which would not for one moment be permitted to exist in this country, whatever might be the arguments for or against its existence in Ireland, he thought that no fair-minded man could wish that the cases which came before it should not have the right of appeal extended to them all. The Attorney General for Ireland had, on a former occasion stated, in reply to a question which he (Mr. Metge) had put to him that the Irish Resident Magistrates were practically under no control whatever. The right hon. Gentleman was forced to acknowledge that these 1430 officials, who were practically despotic, and who even, under the existing law, could do what they liked, were subject, so far as their decisions were concerned, neither to the control of the Lord Lieutenant nor of the Crown—that no Court could review the sentences which they chose to pass upon unfortunate criminals. But, under the present Bill, that danger would be increased threefold, because not only would the arbitrary power of the magistrates, under the old law, continue to exist, but it would be extended over the unlimited area opened up by bringing under the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrates many offences which were utterly beyond the scope of the English law and the necessities of the case.

MR. R. POWER

said, he was surprised that the Government could not see their way to consider the Amendment favorably having regard to the circumstance that it had been advocated by Members of all shades of opinion. It had been supported by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater), by three English Members, and by the hon. Member for Meath who had just spoken. The Amendment meant nothing more than that persons brought up before the Resident Magistrates upon trivial charges should have the right of appeal. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his arguments against it, said that under the Bill no fines were imposed; but he (Mr. R. Power) regarded that as one of its greatest defects. Further, the right hon. Gentleman said that under the existing law in Ireland a man could be imprisoned for a month without appeal; but here, again, he could not agree with his argument, because he could not admit that because the old law allowed no appeal in the cases in question, that law should be embodied in. this Bill. His own view was that accused persons, under all circumstances, should have the right of appeal, especially in the cases contemplated here. The magistrates who were to administer the Act were a class of men in whom, rightly or wrongly, the people of Ireland had no confidence; and it should be remembered that, without doubt, a great many innocent persons must be arrested and brought before them. The powers of the Act, too, were of a most sweeping character, and it should also be borne in mind that they were to be 1431 put in force by men who were unknown in the country. These magistrates might be the most honorable and worthy gentlemen in the world, or they might not; but, at any rate, there was no reason to believe they were better than some of the men who had previously carried out the law in Ireland. Again, there could be no doubt that at the present time the police in Ireland were strongly imaginative. It was only a few weeks ago that a Miss Reynolds, of the Ladies' Land League, was arrested on a charge of intimidating a policeman, who, in reply to the magistrate, said that the intimidation consisted in frowning at him. That was the sort of thing policemen, at the present time in Ireland, called intimidation; but anyone who was personally acquainted with Miss Reynolds would know that no one could be so intimidated by her. Then there was the case of the malicious boy who put "no" before the word "rent" on a placard displayed by way of advertisement on the backs of some pigs. The pigs were arrested and imprisoned; but he was glad to say that the owner could not be found, for had the police got hold of him he would have been imprisoned too. The constitution of the Court was one of the things they were bound to keep before them in considering this question, because in many cases, he did not say in all, very little confidence was placed in them by the people. That being so, he said that the Amendment would produce a salutary effect both in the minds of the people and upon the magistrates themselves, who would, when they knew that the right of appeal could be exercised by the accused in all cases, be far more careful in their decisions. For these reasons, he earnestly appealed to Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan.

§ MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, the clause, as had been already pointed out, took away the right of application for a writ of certiorari—that was to say, the right which every person charged had of having the proceedings in his case reviewed by a Superior Court composed of the Judges of the land.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (MR. COURTNEY)

said, the question as to taking away the right to apply for a writ of certiorari had not arisen. The Question before the Committee was whether the 1432 words "exceeding one month" should stand part of the clause.

§ MR. T. C. THOMPSON

said, he was aware of that fact; but he was arguing that the right of appeal should be given in exchange for the right of application for a writ of certiorari which was to be taken away. The Committee would be aware that the right of appeal was conferred by Act of Parliament; but that the right to a writ of certiorari was the prerogative of the subject, and could only be taken away by Act of Parliament. Therefore, he appealed to the Committee not to be guided by any appearance of kindness on the part of the Crown, but to look to the fact that they were depriving the Irish people of great prerogatives which had existed for centuries. He held that the right of appeal should be extended to sentences of one month's imprisonment, or that the right to a writ of certiorari should not be taken away.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

opposed the Amendment on the ground that, instead of giving a cheap and expeditious means of appeal, it would invent new machinery, requiring an appeal to be sent to the Court of Queen's Bench, and it would occasion very considerable delay and a large additional expense. He did not know it was intended that witnesses should be examined; but, probably, that was not the case, because provision was made that evidence might be given in writing. But what was proposed by the hon. Member was that a person, instead of having an appeal to a Court at his own door, where he could call whatever witnesses he chose, should be put to the expense of going to Dublin in order to prosecute an appeal before a Superior Court. It was perfectly plain that such a provision would only defeat the object his hon. Friend (Mr. Findlater) had in view, 1434 and in many cases would deprive an accused person of the benefit of the appeal given by the Bill.