HC Deb 20 March 1868 vol 190 cc1977-9
SIR CHARLES LANYON

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to recommend during this Session the repeal of the Party Processions Act; or, if not, does he intend to recommend any alterations in the said Act with a view of removing all doubts as to the interpretation of the said Law, and of satisfying the public mind that an impartial administration of the same will, as far as possible, be secured in all parts of Ireland?

THE EARL OF MAYO

said, in answer to his hon. Friend, he had to state that it was not the intention of the Government to propose to Parliament during the present Session to repeal the Party Processions Act. It was quite true that some doubt existed, at a recent period, as to the exact interpretation and meaning of that law, but these doubts, he thought, had been entirely removed by a clear and authoritative statement made by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald on the subject; and, as it was important, he would ask leave of the House to allow him to read the opinion of that Judge on this matter. It was given in his charge to the grand jury at the last Dublin Commission. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald said— They would perceive that to constitute the offence against the Party Processions Act three things were necessary. The first was that there should be an assembly of persons joining in procession; secondly, that the persons so assembling must bear or have among them some emblem or symbol; and, thirdly, that that emblem or symbol should be such as was calculated to create and perpetuate the animosity of some other class of Her Majesty's subjects. If these three circumstances concur, that there is an assembly, that they bore emblems or symbols, and that these latter are calculated to create and perpetuate animosity among Her Majesty's subjects, it constitutes an offence against the Party Processions Act. The enactment was plain and clear on the subject, and he believed he spoke with the entire concurrence of his learned Colleague when he said that it mattered not in the least what might be the colour of the flag, emblem, or symbol—orange or green, light or blue, or any other colour. The question for their consideration would be whether, under the circumstances, the display or carrying of these emblems was calculated to provoke such animosity as the Act pointed out. Now, he thought the law from that interpretation of it was rendered perfectly clear. If any uncertainty arose in its interpretation for the future, it could only occur from juries taking a different view of the effect of the words "calculated to provoke animosity between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects." These words were very wide. It was, however, their intention to consider with the Law Officers of the Crown whether, without weakening or rendering too extensive the provisions of the statute, it might not be possible to make such an alteration as would somewhat narrow the points to be submitted to the jury in these cases. The matter was under consideration, and if a question were put to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland at a future time he would be enabled to state precisely what conclusion the Government came to on the subject.