If the Bill went into Committee, he should pose that measures like this would secure support the Amendment which took away the tranquillity of Ireland. Nothing but altogether any penalty for merely cutting just and equal legislation would do this. crops on Sundays, or early in the morning, While the coercive policy was continued, or late at night, on account of the uncer- large standing armies must be maintained tainty of proving the intent. The Amend- there, involving the expenditure of a large ment also did away with the punishment as amount of taxes. On this ground, Enga misdemeanour, and simply rendered the lishmen, as well as Irishmen, ought to proparties liable to be sued. That would test against this Bill. He moved that the make a material alteration in the Bill; and Bill be read a second time that day three at that period of the Session, he doubted months. the propriety of dealing with Bills in that way. He rather hoped the hon. Promoter of the Bill would not press it further. MR. STAFFORD said, his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin was not in his place; and he thought he had some reason to complain if notice had not been given of this question. He believed it was the hon. Gentleman's intention to adopt the Amendment of the bon. Member for Oxfordshire, for assimilating the law to that of England. He knew not what course he would pursue after the declaration now made by the right hon. Baronet. MR. MOORE said, he wished to give notice of his question, but he had not had opportunity. MR. HENLEY said, he had every reason to believe that the promoter of the Bill would adopt his Amendments. MR. S. CRAWFORD said, he should take this opportunity of reiterating his opposition to this Bill. The first clause of the Act, now in force, gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any district, and to increase the constabulary, which was, in effect, a standing army. He was also empowered to levy taxes to defray the cost to prohibit the carrying of armsto search houses for arms-and other extraordinary powers. No one could doubt that those powers, however necessary at one time, were unconstitutional. There were two modes of governing a country one by enacting just laws, and calling on the people to preserve the peace for themslves; the other by enforcing or continuing unequal laws; and this system had prevailed in Ireland ever since it was a part of the united kingdom. A policy of coercion and extermination was in force under the Earl cf Clarendon at that moment. The noble Earl had given facilities for eviction, and had called for no law to mitigate the misery which flowed from these proceedings. On these grounds he (Mr. S. Crawford) felt it his duty to protest most strongly against this Bill. It was a delusion to sup Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months.' MR. R. M. FOX had no fear that the provisions of the Bill would be abused by the Earl of Clarendon; but he feared that if the present Government were succeeded in office by their opponents, a Lord Lieutenant might be appointed who would be less worthy of being entrusted with them. MR. C. ANSTEY hoped the Government would at least make some attempt to show that this was not an unconstitutional Bill. By giving extraordinary prerogatives to the Crown, either the constitution was suspended or destroyed. It could not be denied that the powers in this Bill were most extraordinary. Hon. Members had been placed in a false position by the Bill being imperfectly described, and not sufficiently explained, on its introduction. Were such a measure proposed for either the manufacturing or agricultural districts of this country, the attempt to pass it would be absurd; it would be thrown out at once. If this measure was necessary, why was it not accompanied with remedial measures, or rather, why did not such measures precede those of a penal character? All the liberal Irish Members were opposed to this coercive policy: nevertheless the Government showed a determination to persist in it. It was true the Earl of Clarendon had exercised these extraordinary powers in a manner which could not be complained of; but the fact that his Lordship succeeded in preserving the peace of the country during a very critical period, without any such extraordinary powers, was a proof that they were unnecessary. They only served to familiarise the Irish with slavery; they were at most but a pis aller; and no case whatever had been made out for their continuance. The prerogative alone was sufficient to arm the Government with all power necessary for suppressing disturbance; and on afterwards asking indemnity from that House, there was no doubt it would be conceded. acting on its own responsibility, did not He objected to give a premium to severe think it expedient to allow the Bill to exmeasures by passing a Bill of Indemnity pire. beforehand. Under this Bill the Lord MR. REYNOLDS said, as he had heard Lieutenant might make himself a perfect no good answer to the arguments that had tyrant, and there would be no means of been urged against his Bill, he should vote reaching him, or those who acted under against the second reading. This Bill of him. The Member did not deserve the three clauses renewed the Coercion Act name of a representative of a people who of 1847, which contained 23 clauses, and would not oppose a measure like this. In wh which was not fit for any civilised country; supporting the opposition to the measure, but only for men in their savage and unhe wished not to prolong the labour of the educated state. On that ground he opSession; but he felt bound to vote against posed its application to Ireland. This it on every stage. It was a proof that Bill was proposed on the ground that the there was no disposition on the part of Go- Earl of Clarendon had not abused the vernment to abandon the coercive policy provisions of the Act. That might be they had so long pursued. He would very true, but the Earl of Clarendon had never support penal measures for Ireland, under him officials, for whose proper conwhich were not fit for the meridian of this duct he could not be responsible. As an country. There was a talk of assimilating instance of that he would mention that the laws of the two countries; but all that permission to carry arms had been refused was meant was to extend to Ireland those to a most respectable gentleman in Dublin English laws which were all but intoler--he alluded to Mr. J. H. Thomas, of able, and which must speedily be repealed. Ranelagh. He had that day received a An assimilation of this nature could only produce greater oppression in Ireland. SIR G. GREY said, that his not rising immediately after the mover and seconder of the Amendment did not proceed from any disrespect towards the opponents of the Bill; but hon. Gentlemen would remember that two discussions had already taken place on this subject, and that on the first occasion his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, both stated the grounds which had led the Government to ask for the continuance of the Act for a limited time. He understood, besides, that the hon. Gentleman who now opposed the second reading of the Bill, did not wish to raise another debate on the question, but merely to enter his protest against the measure. He was not aware that he could add anything to what had already been said by his noble and right hon. Friends. The object of the Bill was not oppression, but the security of life. When first proposed, outrages of a shocking character had occurred. He rejoiced to say that the Act had been instrumental in checking such occurrences, though recent experience had shown that they had not ceased altogether. He admitted that the Bill was of an exceptional character, and he should be happy to find that its further extension was unnecessary. At the same time he fully concurred with what had already been stated on the part of the Government, that at present the Government, letter of a similar kind from an individual who stated that he had been refused a licence to carry arms by a shopkeeper who was a magistrate, which refusal he attributed to political hostility. If this measure was to be applied to Ireland, why was it not also applied to England and Scotland on the principle that "what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander?" But in addition to what he had stated there was no guarantee that the Earl of Clarendon would remain in Ireland. There were 30,000 troops of various kinds in Ireland, and were they not enough to keep the peace without this Algerine Act? He knew nothing more likely to irritate the people of Ireland than such a measure, and he would do everything in his power to strangle it, because he looked upon it as a wanton outrage on the people of that country. He would divide the House on every stage of the Bill, and he begged to return his thanks to the hon. Member for Rochdale, for the manly stand he took upon this and on all other occasions, when the rights of his country was concerned. MR. HUME wished to know whether, before the next stage of the Bill, the Government would be prepared with a return of the districts in Ireland in which the Act had been put into operation, together with the charge to the counties in Ireland and to the public, on account of additional constables required in consequence of its passing. He understood that the Irish Members had come to an arrangement to give He | Hamilton, G. A. Hatchell, J. Headlam, T. E. Hawes, B. Henley, J. W. up any further opposition to the Bill. deprecated such a course. For himself, he was prepared to continue his opposition to the Bill in every stage. He had 26 years ago declared his opinion that peace would never be restored to Ireland whilst the Protestant Church was maintained in its present proportion, and as long as one party were possessed of the idea of superiority on account of religion. He hoped that this subject would be taken up by the Government next Session. The present state of Ireland was discreditable and disgraceful to the nation that kept it under, for they were now kept under by coercion. He should have thought that they had tried coercion long enough. He blamed the Tories for following a policy of coercion, and though he was then joined by the Gentlemen who formed the present Government, he was sorry to say that they had as yet made no attempts at conciliation. He now urged them to bring forward, for the peace of Ireland, and the character of England, such measures as would abolish the evils under which Ireland laboured. SIR G. GREY said, that he would make inquiries respecting the return which the hon. Member alluded to. MR. E. B. ROCHE said that, as far as he was concerned, he entered into no compromise with regard to this Bill, which he considered most obnoxious and disgraceful. But it was difficult to continue a debate where all the speaking and arguments were on one side. Paget, Lord C. Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Morris, D. Sandars, G. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Stanley, hon. W. O. Willoughby, Sir H. Wood, rt, hon. Sir C. TELLERS. Hayter, W. G. Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow, at Twelve o'clock. LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL. SIR G. GREY, seeing the hon. Member for the University of Dublin in his place, begged to ask him whether, after what had been stated in the course of the preceding debate, with regard to the inexpediency of proceeding with his Bill, it was his intention to go further with it? MR. G. A. HAMILTON said, he was not in this House when the observations referred to had been made, but he had been informed of their tenor. If the House would indulge him for a few minutes, he would state the position in which he felt himself placed in consequence of the intimation which the right hon. Secretary had just given. In the first place, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the stringency of the clauses for preventing the fraudulent cutting of crops at night to evade distress, he (Mr. Hamilton) felt it necessary to say that the clauses had been taken verbatim from a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government early in the Session; and, therefore, if that were a matter of complaint, he submitted that the blame should rest, not with him, but with those by whom the clauses had been originally framed. He had taken up the Bill because he believed it a necessary Bill, both to protect the just rights of the landlord, and for the interests of the tenants also. [Derisive cheers.] He would repeat it, for he could not believe that the fraudulent cutting and carrying away of crops at night, could be otherwise than injurious to the tenant class. But it was obviously impossible for a private Member, at so advanced a period of the Session, to carry a Bill of this kind, unless actively supported by Government; but he would tell the House what he believed would be the consequences of its rejection. The practice of fraudulently carrying away of crops at night would increase; collisions and ill-will between landlord and tenant would be the consequence; landlords, at November, would serve their tenants-atwill with notice to quit, in order to have them in their power next year. Many landlords, he was aware, had processed their tenants in the civil-bill courts, and obtained executions, under which they had the power of seizing their growing crops. This would be a disastrous state of things, and it would be prevented by the passing of the Bill. If, however, it was the intention of the Government to oppose it, or not to support it, as they had done for so far, it was useless for him to proceed further. He would only say that upon Government, and upon them alone, must the responsibility of the consequences rest. SIR G. GREY asked, whether the hon. Member would consent to withdraw the Bill? MR. G. A. HAMILTON would be no party to withdrawing a Bill which he continued to think necessary; but if any one else chose to move that the Order be discharged, he would not resist it. MR. REYNOLDS then moved that the Order of the Day for going into Committee be read, for the purpose of being discharged; which was agreed to without opposition. Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on going into Committee [6th August] read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn. CUSTOMS BILL. Order for Third Reading read. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the addition of the following clause : lations have from time to time been made by the "And whereas divers rules, orders, and reguCommissioners of Her Majesty's Customs, in pursuance of the powers conferred upon them by certain Acts passed in various Sessions of Parliament, some of which Acts have since been rerules, orders, or regulations are still of legal pealed; and doubts having arisen whether such force and efficacy; Be it therefore enacted, that all rules, orders, and regulations already made or issued by or under the authority of the said Commissioners, under or in pursuance of any Act or Acts relating to the Customs, or to Trade or Navigation, although such Act or Acts may have been repealed, shall be and continue in full force and effect, so far as such rules, orders, and regu laws in force relating to the Customs, or to Trade lations are consistent with the provisions of the or Navigation, unless and until the same shall be revoked or rescinded, and that all Acts whatsoever done or to be done in pursuance of any such orders, rules, and regulations shall be valid and effectual." MR. HUME opposed the adoption of the clause. Clause brought up, and read 1o. Motion made, and Question put, "That said Clause be now read a Second Time." The House divided:-Ayes 50; Noes 14: Majority 36. Clause read 2o, 3o, and added. MR. NEWDEGATE moved, in page 2, line 35, after the words "a true account,' to insert the words "of the quantities and real value." He considered that the insertion of these words would form an additional security for the correctness of the Customs accounts. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER objected to the insertion of the words without due notice being given to all persons whose interests would be affected, and to whom considerable inconvenience would be occasioned; but he would not object to consider the question of an improved system of Customs accounts in another Session. Question, "That these words be there inserted," put, and negatived. Bill passed. ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT BILL. SIR G. GREY said, that this Bill had come down from the House of Lords, and it contained much matter that would constitute extremely valuable improvements MR. P. SCROPE observed, that if they did agree to 2001., it ought to be limited to those societies that were certified under the Friendly Societies Act. in the administration of criminal justice. | these societies had put the public to one At the same time there were some clauses, shilling of expense, but they contributed particularly the first and second, which to the revenue by paying stamps on their required more consideration than the House policies. The Provident Clerks' Associacould bestow upon them at this period of tion, with which he was connected, had the Session, and in the absence from town paid in this way 1,7001. for stamps. of the Judges. He proposed, therefore, to postpone the Bill for the present Session; but he wished at the same time to state that his hon. Friends, the Solicitor General and the President of the Poor Law Board, who had formerly paid much attention to this subject, had undertaken to attend to this Bill during the recess, in concert with the Judges; and in the course of next Session he would present the Bill again, with sueh improvements as might then be deemed necessary. In the meantime, he would move that the order for going into Committee on this Bill be discharged. MR. HENLEY expressed his entire concurrence in the course adopted by the Government. MR. AGLIONBY also declared his opinion that the Government had taken the wisest course with reference to this measure. Order for Committee read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved that the blank be filled up with 100%. MR. J. A. SMITH said, he thought the sum fixed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was too low He thought it should be fixed at a sum. 2001. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, these societies were for the benefit of the lower class of people, and 100l. was as large a sum as a person of that class would insure his life for. To go farther, would be to confer a benefit, at the expense of the public, on a class different from those for whom the Bill was intended, and therefore he must oppose the sugges tion. MR. AGLIONBY supported the proposition for 2001. MR. HUME considered that fixing it at 1007. was a great concession. The public was already much taxed for the advantage of these societies. MR. J. A. SMITH said, he was willing to accede to that. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he allowed existing insurances to remain as they were, but that the Act would apply to future assurances. Clause agreed to. Clause 39. SIR H. WILLOUGHBY asked whether it was intended to subject friendly societies to all the clauses and provisions of the Acts relating to savings banks? and whether Government would guarantee the continuance of the rate of interest proposed to be given under this Bill 31. Os. 10d. per cent. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that it was not intended to subject the moneys invested on behalf of friendly societies to the regulations of the Savings Banks Acts. With regard to the hon. Baronet's second question, he begged to state that there was a certain number of friendly societies to which, by law, an interest at the rate of 41. 11s. was insured, and there were other societies to which an interest of 31. 16s. was insured. In these cases the rates of interest which had been guaranteed would be continued; but it was proposed in future cases to give a reduced amount of interest. The result of the arrangements he had mentioned was considerable annual loss to the country, the loss last year upon the interest paid to friendly societies having been 20,7001. He thought it extremely desirable that the rate fixed to be hereafter paid should be permanent, and he had therefore proposed a rate of interest a little below that which he might otherwise have been disposed to suggest. He had proposed a rate of 31. Os. 10d. per cent as a sum upon which the parties, so far as he could give any assurance, might permanently calculate. Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 40. Clause 8. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the following Amend MR. J. A. SMITH said, not one of ment: |