HC Deb 14 June 1882 vol 270 cc1191-217

Clause 7 (Illegal meetings).

MR. P. MARTIN,

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 14, to leave out the words "to be," in order to insert the words "of which public notice shall be given," said, the clause, as at present framed, might lead to gross injustice. It presented no public notification of the fact that this order had been made. Persons might attend, wholly unaware the meeting had been made illegal. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had an Amendment lower down on the Paper, by which he also sought to obviate the infliction of the severe penalties, for offences against this section, on persons who might be ignorant that there was any prohibition. If this clause was left without amendment, it might cause the greatest injustice.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 14, to leave out the words "to be" and insert, "of which public notice shall be given."—(Mr. Patrick Martin.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'to be' stand part of the Clause."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he should be glad to accept the Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

thought it very desirable, before the Committee proceeded any further with the clause, that the necessity for such a clause should be shown. The Lord Lieutenant had already amply exercised his powers of prohibition. Had he not, within the last six months, prohibited every kind of meeting to which he had the slightest objection? What, then, was the necessity for this clause?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,

in reply, said, the first part of the clause gave the necessary power to the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit illegal meetings, and the second part was necessary to give the means of effectuating that prohibition by action against individuals who declined to obey the law. At pro-sent, where a proclamation was issued against the holding of a public meeting, the only means by which effect could be given to it was to disperse the meeting by force. It was thought to be necessary that there should be a continual machinery, and by this clause that machinery would be provided, so as to bring those who took part in an illegal meeting within the summary jurisdiction of the Act. This was the reason why the clause was deemed to be necessary.

MR. SEXTON

wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) was aware that during last year the Lord Lieutenant had prohibited two classes of meetings, the sheriff's sales and ordinary public meetings? He also wished to know whether, in consequence of disobedience to these prohibitions, any public inconvenience had arisen? He desired to know likewise whether it was not the fact that the ordinary law was sufficient?

MR. PARNELL

said, before that question was answered he would like to ask another. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Homo Department (Sir William Harcourt) any information to give the Committee as to the number of public meetings that had been prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant during the last six or 12 months; and also as to the number of eases in which the proclamations of the Lord Lieutenant had been obeyed, or in which it had become necessary to disperse the meetings by force?

DR. COMMINS

said, he also wished to ask whether, under the law, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had been entitled to make the proclamations that had been issued during the last 12 months? So far as his (Dr. Commins') research was concerned, the action of the Lord Lieutenant in this respect was not only utterly unconstitutional, but was also utterly illegal.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,

in reply, said, the questions that had just been put were entirely contradictory. One question assumed that the power was legal, and that of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Commins) assumed that the power was not legal. If the exercise of that power was not legal, it was the object of this clause to make it so; and if, on the other hand, it was legal, it was still desirable that the doubt expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman should be removed, and that the people of Ireland should be made aware, by the declaration contained in that clause, that the power was legal. He need not say that Her Majesty's Government had introduced this clause with very great reluctance, and he might add that there was what he might term a national feeling among Englishmen of all parties and shades of opinion—a feeling of repugnance at the interference thus proposed with the rights of the people; and he believed that, in many parts of the House, he should be believed when he made this statement. But they ought never to allow themselves to be blinded to the fact that they could not overlook the actual state of the case. They were bound to consider what the condition of Ireland really was at the present time, and what were the peculiar circumstances which rendered the application of remedies of an extraordinary character absolutely indispensable. Public meetings might, no doubt, be considered as a source of light; but they ought to have some regard to the atmosphere into which the light was carried, and it would be the height of recklessness to carry a light in the form of a naked candle into a chamber filled with explosive material. It had been said that proposals of this character ought to be specially repugnant to the feelings of the Liberal Party. That was perfectly true; but he would call attention to the fact that, at one time, after the Liberal Party had been out of Office for half-a-century, during which they had had to fight the battle of freedom in Opposition, it became their unfortunate duty, but still their duty, and a duty which they did not shrink from performing, in the very first year after the passing of the Reform Bill, to introduce measures which they considered to be absolutely indispensable for the preservation of the peace in Ireland. That was the great Liberal Reform Administration, which was represented by Lord Grey in the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons by a Relative of the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He supposed he might say, without fear of contradiction, that there was no man living who was more indisposed to recommend the adoption of measures of that description than the present Earl Spencer, unless it was that distinguished man, Lord Althorp, who was his Relative, and who was a Member of the Administration just referred to. And yet Lord Althorp, in the very infancy of the Reform Parliament, found it necessary, in the then disturbed condition of Ireland, to introduce a Bill, the very first clause of which contained these words:— That it shall and may be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, at any time after the passing of this Act, and from time to time during the continuance thereof, as occasion may require, by his or their order in writing, of which public notice shall be given, to prohibit or suppress the meeting of any association, assembly, or body of persons which he or they shall deem to be dangerous to the public peace or safety, or inconsistent with the due administration of the law, and by the same, or any other order also to prohibit any or every adjourned, renewed, or otherwise continued meeting of the same or of any part thereof under any name, pretext, shift or device whatsoever, and that every meeting of any association, assembly or body of persons, the meeting whereof shall be so prohibited or suppressed as aforesaid, and every postponed, adjourned, renewed or otherwise continued meeting thereof under any name pretext, shift or device whatsoever, shall be and be deemed an unlawful assembly, and after notice has been given of such meeting having been prohibited or suppressed, as aforesaid, every person present at the same shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and every such offence, whether committed within any district proclaimed in pursuance of this Act, or elsewhere, in Ireland, shall be tried and punished according to the course of the common law.

MR. PARNELL

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman in what year that Act was passed?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,

in reply, said, the Act was passed in the year 1833, the first year after the election of the Reform Parliament.

MR. PARNELL

said, he would like also to be informed whether that Act abolished trial by jury in these cases?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,

in reply, said, the Act did not abolish trial by jury. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had used the words "in these cases." His (Sir William Harcourt's) reply was, that it established martial law.

MR. PARNELL

asked if the Act just referred to established martial law in these cases?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it did not; but it did establish martial law in Ireland. He had said there had always been a feeling of repugnance among the Liberal Party at interference with the rights of the people; but he would also say that it never had been a tradition of the Liberal Party to tolerate disorder or attacks on life and property, whether in Ireland or elsewhere; and if it were true that the measures Her Majesty's Government were now proposing were necessary for the purpose of preventing such attacks, then he had a right to say that they were fulfilling and acting up to the traditions of the Liberal Party; and the Liberal Party—at least as much as the Conservative Party—were bound, under the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, to preserve the lives and protect the property of the subjects of the Queen. The only question they ought to ask themselves was this—was the situation in Ireland at the present moment such as justified and rendered necessary a resort to measures of this character? If they found that it was so, then he must say that the present Administration would no more shrink from the performance of their duty than did the Administration of Earl Grey. Well, upon that point, he could only say that the opinion of the Irish Government was clear and distinct, that the powers asked for by this clause were absolutely necessary. He would read to the Committee what had been said by Earl Spencer on this subject. Earl Spencer said— The danger of meetings at which inflammatory speeches are made is very great, when the country is in the excited condition in which it has lately been. He (Sir William Harcourt) would ask the attention of the Committee to these words:— Outrages follow these meetings with remarkable certainty. The Executive have, at great risk, stopped them; but they only rely on sufficient force to prevent bloodshed, and a statutory power to stop meetings believed to be dangerous to the public peace and public safety, and making it an offence for anyone to attend these meetings after such a notice will strengthen enormously the hands of the Government, and one of the greatest dangers to the public peace will be checked. Such were the views of the Irish Government on this question. Her Majesty's Government were satisfied that those views were well founded; and it was for the reasons he (Sir William Harcourt) had thus stated that Her Majesty's Government had introduced, with whatever reluctance, the clause now under discussion; and it was on these grounds that they felt bound to support the application for the powers it was intended to confer.

MR. SEXTON

said, by what extraordinary selection the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been charged with the conduct of a Bill which abrogated the liberties of the Irish people he (Mr. Sexton) was unable to understand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in endeavouring to strengthen the position of the Government in their attempt to abolish the right of public meeting in Ireland, had referred to a precedent, and had been obliged to go back 50 years for the purpose. He had been compelled to refer to the acts of statesmen who did not claim to be called Liberal, but who were satisfied with the designation of Whig. One would have thought the Government would have been ashamed to refer in that House to the period of 1833, when the tithe movement might be said to have resulted in wholesale slaughter amongst the community, 60 murders having been committed in one county, and 33 in another, in the course of a year. A period such as that, when the country was convulsed with a violent outburst of public feeling, was not comparable to the present time, because the outrages then committed were to the outrages of to-day as ten to one. But coercion had failed in those days as it would again, tranquillity having only been restored by the illusory settlement of the Tithe Question. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman had thought fit to put forward the Act of 1833 in justification of the policy of the Government, he had, however, not cited the opinion of Lord Morpeth, a man who knew the situation of Ireland, and who testified that the conflict with the forces raging at that period had utterly failed, and that it was only when a milder policy, he would not say of conciliation, was begun, that a period of repose ensued. Did the Act of 1833 tell in favour of the peace of Ireland? On the contrary; for years after the passage of that Act, when other measures of coercion had been piled upon it, as the pile grew higher and higher over the heads of the people, higher and higher grew the amount of crime. It was not until the people had the idea, delusive as it was, that their interests were being attended to; when coercion had proved, after four years' experience of it, that it was useless for the purpose it was intended for, that the Government of the day learned by degrees that there was no cure for the condition of Ireland but to yield to the just wants and wishes of the people. It was then, and then only, that tranquillity was restored. Never was there a more miserable failure than the Act of 1833, and for that reason alone it ought not to have been cited by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was true that the Act of 1833 suspended the right of public meeting in Ireland; but did it suspend the right of trial by jury? Even under that Act, that right was untouched, and it was reserved for the Radicals of the 19th century to deprive the people of Ireland both of their right of public meeting and their right to Constitutional trial. Again, it was said that Lord Spencer had expressed the opinion that if he had power to prohibit public meetings, it would greatly strengthen the hands of the Executive Government. But he (Mr. Sexton) contended that the hands of the Executive in Ireland, in that respect, needed no strengthening whatever; and in saying that he stood upon the experience of last year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone into matters of history, but had not touched either of the two questions he had put to him, notwithstanding that he admitted they were somewhat pertinent to the matter in hand. Was it statesmanlike or consistent on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make that admission, and then sit down with a triumphant air after evading those questions altogether? The Lord Lieutenant had undoubtedly prohibited meetings at Sheriffs' sales, where it was not to be wondered at that the people were exasperated into a state of excitement. But when the Lord Lieutenant exercised the power of prohibiting meetings for the discussion of the agrarian question, was the Executive in any case obliged to resort to force for the preservation of the peace? On the contrary, he said that the moment the proclamation appeared, the public stood aside, and there was no disturbance of the peace. Did it become necessary for the authorities to prosecute any individuals, or did the people in any way persevere in having meetings which were forbidden? Again the answer was in the negative. Then he (Mr. Sexton) said that the past year's experience abundantly proved that the existing powers of the Lord Lieutenant were ample, and that, so far as the clause before the Committee was concerned, the Preamble of the Bill contained a false and unfounded statement. The Preamble of the Bill said that the operation of the ordinary law had become insufficient for the repression and prevention of crime, and that it was expedient to make further provision for that purpose. He (Mr. Sexton) traversed, denied, and declared that statement to be false. The powers already in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant were ample for the preservation of peace and order, and he challenged any hon. or right hon. Gentleman to get up and deny the truth of the statement. Now, if the hands of the Lord Lieutenant were strong enough to combat the difficulties of the situation, as they were abundantly proved to be, it followed that the clause was unnecessary. He once more asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman if the Lord Lieutenant had, in any case, used force in connection with public meetings in Ireland; if public inconvenience had in any case ensued upon these meetings; had the powers of the Lord Lieutenant been found sufficient for the purpose of dealing with them; and, why, if they were, the Government were about to strengthen them?

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had expressed great reluctance in supporting a clause for the further limitation of public liberty in Ireland. Irish Members must do him the justice to say that his reluctance was admirably dissembled. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that, under the existing law, there was no means of dealing with a prohibited meeting except by dispersing it by force. That being so, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that when this clause was obtained the Government would allow public meetings to proceed without dispersing them by force? Would they judge by results whether any action was to be taken with regard to them? He failed to perceive the reason for the previous statement earlier in the evening of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the progress of the Bill. If he were so anxious about the time of the Committee, it was difficult to understand why he should delay the Committee so considerably by the introduction of utterly superfluous matter in his lengthy endeavour to prove that the clause was strictly in the ways of the Liberal Party. He (Mr. O'Donnell) would suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should, in future, take all arguments of that kind as said; for it was well understood that the ways of the Liberal Party were always compatible with the most rigorous coercion in Ireland; and, although he stated that the majority of the House would bear him out in his opinion, ho (Mr. O'Donnell) ventured to say that there was very little sympathy with the principles of the Liberal Party among those Members who now supported it anywhere outside the four corners of Great Britain. The only result of the clause would be to create as many punishable offences as it might suit the policy or fears of an incompetent Viceroy to call into existence. It had been said as a satire upon foreign tyrants that nothing was easier than to govern by a state of siege. Her Majesty's Government had set about governing Ireland by that means, and the application of that regime, discoverable in the present clause, was the most objectionable that could be imagined, because it amounted to this—that the Viceroy, upon some information from persons of whom nothing was known, and whose right to be listened to could not be tested, might prohibit any public meeting in Ireland. That meeting might be most orderly, the speeches at it most mild, and many things might be said there within the bounds of reasonable criticism and appropriate denunciation; yet because the meeting was for the purpose of considering things distasteful to the Government, and the speeches calculated to exhibit the fallacy of the Government policy, the Lord Lieutenant could come down upon it with the whole force of the Bill, bringing before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in connection with it any persons he chosed, and subjecting them to the degradation and pain of six months' imprisonment with hard labour. The clause gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to create a number of undefined offences, and to trust to the Resident Magistrates to punish them with undefined penalties. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had been accused by an hon. Member, a Friend of the Liberal Party in all their attempts upon the liberties of the Irish people, with having misrepresented the Government in saying that their method of procedure with regard to the Bill was simply to declare their policy and refuse to accept any Amendments. He should be glad to find that he had in that respect misrepresented the policy of the Government, and would be ready to apologize to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), if ho could see the slightest disposition on the part of the Government to accept the smallest reasonable Amendments to the clause.

MR. SAMUELSON

rose to Order. Was it permissible for any hon. Member to discuss the principle of the clause upon an Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, in expressing the displeasure he felt at the manner the subject was being dealt with, had introduced a somewhat extended discussion upon the clause, it would hardly be becoming for him (the Chairman) to draw the line too strictly. It was entirely out of Order to discuss the merits of a clause upon a simple Amendment.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he could assure the Committee that he had no intention of following the eloquent second reading speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; because that would have the effect of leading the Committee too far from the subject before them. The hon. Member who had just intervened without reason (Mr. H. Samuelson) was, to a certain extent, justified by the action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and it was doubtless owing to a truly Liberal tenderness for the conduct of his Chiefs that he had not risen to Order during the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

again rose—[Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

indicated that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was not out of Order.

MR. O'DONNELL,

resuming, said, the hon. Member for Frome, having intervened without reason, had now intervened without Order. But to continue. If this clause were passed, unamended as he presumed it would be, in conformity with the programme laid down by the Government, it would be impossible for public opinion in Ireland to find legitimate expression, and in that case it would not only seek, but find illegitimate expression. The conduct of the Government in refusing any Amendment to the clause was simply in keeping with their action upon other clauses of the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not think that a very fair charge, inasmuch as he had just signified his willingness to accept the first Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Patrick Martin).

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the rapid acceptance of the proposal of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Patrick Martin) showed how much the clause stood in need of amendment, and the intervention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was therefore simply rhetorical. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had said if the public were prevented in the expression of their grievances, not only were the people of a country injured, but the Government was also injured, because it shut itself out from the knowledge of what was necessary to the good government of the country. Consequently, the refusal to grant the liberty of public meeting in Ireland was as much a blow against good government as against public liberty; and it confirmed the impression that good government and public liberty were, at the present time, equally apart from the designs of the Liberal Party.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when referring to the Act of 1833, might have given the Committee some information as to the state of Ireland at the time that Act was introduced. According to a very instructive book by Mr. Leader called Coercive Measures in Ireland, which gave some very interesting information as to the proceedings of the Liberal Party, it appeared that in the year preceding the passing of the Act, there were, amongst other crimes, 172 homicides, 1,465 robberies, 468 burglaries, and 425 illegal meetings—of which there had not been one last year—753 attacks on houses, 2,083 illegal notices, 280 arsons, and 3,156 serious assaults. Altogether the crimes connected with the disturbed state of the country at that time amounted to upwards of 9,000, and crime was then increasing. This Act when passed would apply to all Ireland. The happy and prosperous Province of Ulster would be just as much under the purview of this Act as would be the most disturbed parts of the county of Galway. The Act of 1833 did not extend to all Ireland, for the Lord Lieutenant was empowered to issue his proclamation, saying that a district was disturbed, and directing the application of the Act to that district. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, in showing his erudition in coercion, might have referred to the experiences of the Head of the Government, then a Member of a Cabinet, but not a Liberal Cabinet, for the Prime Minister, like many others, had seen the error of his ways. In 1833 the Clontarf meeting was put down by proclamation, and O'Connell was convicted by Judge and jury for having been one of the promoters of that meeting. In referring to the Act of 1833 the Secretary of State for the Home Department kept the Committee in ignorance of the real state of the country at that time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also concealed from the Committee the fact that the Act of 1833 contained a safeguard that the present Act did not contain—namely, that it should only operate in districts which had been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant.

Question put, and negatived; words inserted accordingly.

MR. DILLON

said, the next Amendment was one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and in the temporary absence of his hon. Friend he (Mr. Dillon) would move it. It was, in page 4, line 15, to leave out from "which" to "safety," in line 16, inclusive, and insert "the holding of which he has reason to believe would lead to a breach of the peace." There were some important considerations connected with the Amendment, and he hoped that in moving it he would not interfere with the right of any other hon. Member to make an Amendment on the same subject. Perhaps the Chairman would kindly put the question as one to leave out the word "which," and thus enable other Amendments to be put. This Amendment raised some important considerations, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accepting it. He listened with considerable attention while the Secretary of State for the Home Department was reading the extract from the 1st clause of the Act of 1833, and one thing had struck him as being very extraordinary. This clause provided that the Lord Lieutenant might prohibit Any meeting which he has reason to believe to he dangerous to the public peace or the public safety. Now, public peace and public safety were two very different things. If a meeting was believed to be dangerous to the public peace, it was believed that the dangers were such that they might amount to a breach of the peace. Allow him to point out that a meeting might be dangerous to the public safety, because it was held in furtherance of a movement which, in the opinion of the Government, was not a proper movement. There was no meeting held in England in furtherance of any reform which, in the opinion of a large section of the House of Commons, and very often of the Government of the day, was not dangerous to the public safety, because it was held in furtherance of a movement which the House and the Government might strongly disapprove of. If the words proposed to be left out were left in, no public meeting could be held in Ireland in furtherance of a public movement which the Lord Lieutenant considered the Government ought not to approve of. If the Secretary of State for the Home Department was so very anxious to go on the precedent of the Bill of 1833—and he (Mr. Dillon) submitted with confidence to the Committee that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to go beyond the Bill of 1833—he certainly ought to remove the word "or," and make the clause read "dangerous to the public peace and the public safety," which were the words of the Act of 1833.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) would excuse him if he said that the words of the Act of 1833 were "which shall be deemed to be dangerous to public peace or safety." Then the Act of 1833 went further than the present Government had thought it necessary to go, for to the two conditions he had enumerated were added the words "or inconsistent with the due administration of the law."

MR. DILLON

said, he had not the Act of 1833 with him; but he would remind the Committee that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in support of the contention that the clause was necessary, also read portions of a letter from Earl Spencer, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the wording of the letter was that it would be necessary to strengthen the hands of the Government by enabling him to prohibit meetings which he considered dangerous to the public peace and public safety. These were certainly the words of the Lord Lieutenant as read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He (Mr. Dillon) wished to point out that the word "and" made a most important difference. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would put it in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit any meeting, the holding of which he considered would lead to a breach of the peace. The question was, were they to place power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit meetings which, in his opinion, were dangerous to the public safety, or was the power to be confined to meetings which, in the opinion of His Excellency, would be likely to lead to a breach of the peace? One of the strongest arguments in favour of the Amendment was the dreadful penalty which was imposed for the offence. The punishment was an excessive and severe one, and as the clause stood, it, no doubt, would be inflicted on persons who simply attended the meeting, and did nothing illegal. He (Mr. Dillon) had had a good deal of experience in attending meetings in Ireland, and he knew of numberless instances in which prohibitions had been made on so short notice that it was ab- solutely necessary, in order to prevent bloodshed, that some of the popular leaders should attend and call upon the people to disperse. He challenged the Government to instance a single case in which popular leaders had attended meetings to advise the people to disperse, and in which they had not been successful. He asserted, without the possibility of contradiction, that at some meetings the magistrates had acted in a most unreasonable and provoking way, and it was only through the exercise of the influence of the popular leaders that bloodshed and frightful disorder had not occurred. The dispersion of a meeting was excessively dangerous. A meeting was, perhaps, announced a week in advance, the country was canvassed, numerous masses of people were called upon to attend, and, perhaps on the Saturday night a proclamation was published in The Dublin Gazette—a paper almost unknown in Ireland—prohibiting the proposed meeting as illegal. How were the people of the country districts to be informed of the proclamation, unless it be through their own leaders? He could mention many cases in which people had started to meetings in thousands; but they had been met on the road by priests and leaders of the Land League, and requested to turn back, in consequence of the prohibition of the meeting. The Government could not point to a single instance in which the leaders of the Land League had refused to exercise their influence, and to exercise it with effect in preventing collisions between the police and the people. He supposed he did not overstate it when he said that close upon 100 meetings had been proclaimed during the last year, and that in not a single case had a life been lost and a collision taken place between the authorities and the people. Was it to be supposed that every one of the thousands of people who attended a meeting, innocent of the fact that it had been proclaimed, were to be subject to six months' imprisonment with hard labour? How could the Government expect popular leaders to attend on the spot, and exercise their influence in preventing a collision between the police and the people, if by that attendance they would place themselves in danger of six months' imprisonment with hard labour? He knew of an instance of a meeting in the streets of Dublin, which was dispersed at half-an-hour's notice. He used his influence with the people to cause them to disperse, and they did so; there was no collision with the authorities, although the provocation given by the police was positively frightful. If this clause had been law at that time, he would have been subject to six months' imprisonment for being on the spot. If he had not been there, the people would have been left without any advice, and without any information as to whether the meeting was illegal or legal, except such as they could obtain from the police proclamation. One of the chief objections to this clause was that it would place hundreds and thousands of people in the position of having committed an offence against this Act, when it was utterly impossible to know that their attendance at a meeting would be any offence at all. Another great objection to the clause was that it would enormously increase the danger of collisions between the police, and the military, and the people, because he took it that whenever a meeting was prohibited the military would be sent. If this clause was passed, it would be made a penal offence, punishable by a severe penalty, for any popular leader to attend the place of a proclaimed meeting, and use his influence to cause the people to turn back. He feared that this could only be regarded as a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to cause collisions between the police and the people. This was a question fraught with very great danger, and, therefore, he earnestly advised the Committee to consider carefully what would be the effect of the clause before they proceeded any further with its consideration.

Amendment proposed, In page 4 line 15, leave out from "which" to "safety," in line 16, inclusive, and insert "the holding of which he has reason to believe would lead to a breach of the peace."—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'which he has reason to believe,' stand part of the Clause."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

wished to ask the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) if he had not an Amendment to propose on this subject?

THE CHAIRMAN

If it is decided that these words stand part of the clause, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) cannot move his Amendment.

MR. HEALY

said, he had not intended to move the Amendment, because he understood the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had a better Amendment to propose.

MR. DILLON

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LABOUCHERE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 15, to leave out from the word "which" to the word "safety," in line 16, both inclusive, and insert— Convened for an unlawful purpose, or with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously. Anyone who took the trouble to read the newspapers that morning would see a good deal about what legal and illegal meetings were, because in all the papers there was a report of an appeal from a conviction of the magistrates of Weston-super-Mare, in regard to a public meeting of the Salvation Army. The magistrates prohibited a public meeting of the Salvation Army, and they committed certain chieftains of this Army for insisting upon marching through the town. The matter was carried to the Superior Court at Westminster, and, from the proceedings in that Court, ho (Mr. Labouchere) gathered that the only public meetings which were illegal, according to the English law, wore meetings convened for unlawful purposes, or with intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously; and that was the reason why he had embodied these words in his Amendment. As the clause now stood, it was left to the Lord Lieutenant to decide whether a meeting was dangerous to the public peace or public safety. The consequence would be that there would be no sort of appeal from the decision of the Lord Lieutenant, because he would say—"I have reason to believe it;" whereas, if they laid down some sort of limitation, it would be open at once for anyone to contest before the Irish tribunals whether the Lord Lieutenant was exceeding his power or not. The Lord Lieutenant would have to say whether a meeting he prohibited was a lawful one or an unlawful one; and if ho were to prohibit a meeting that was law- ful in itself, the tribunals would step in and stop him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would very probably say—"The Lord Lieutenant is a man actuated by the very best motives—he never will make a mistake." Well, he (Mr. Labouchere) was quite ready to admit that Earl Spencer was a man actuated by the very best motives; but, supposing he was, he (Mr. Labouchere) should be sorry to give anyone, either in this country or Ireland, absolute power for the suppression of public meetings, simply because he believed he would not abuse it. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman never seemed to remember was that this Bill was not to be in force only during such time as Earl Spencer was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It was not "Earl Spencer" who was mentioned in the Bill, but "The Lord Lieutenant," and the measure was to last for three years. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Keep the Government in.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman said—"Keep the Government in," and he (Mr. Labouchere) should endeavour to do that; but, notwithstanding all their efforts, it might be that the Government could not be kept in; and he would put it to the Committee, at least to hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, suppose there was a change of Government, would they like to intrust the power of deciding what was or what was not a public meeting to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther)? It was obvious to everyone on that side of the House that the right hon. Gentleman, if these powers were intrusted to him, would, as he himself would say, use them; but, as they would say, abuse them. He had more than once pointed out that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had power to prohibit public meetings, and put persons in prison in Great Britain under the Bill, he would have to put down the meetings of the Prime Minister in Mid Lothian, supposing the Prime Minister enunciated such views as those he enunciated during his political campaign. Such a course as that would only be carrying out the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and ho (Mr. Labouchere) therefore said, ought they not to put some limitation to the right to suppress public meetings of any noble Lord who might be Lord Lieutenant, or any right hon. Gentleman—and he said "or any right hon. Gentleman," because he presumed the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire might be again the Adviser of a Conservative Lord Lieutenant, and the right hon. Gentleman's stronger will would practically prevail. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department objected to definitions. He would say—"Good gracious, if you have a definition here you will want one every where—you will want a definition of murder." But there were definitions in the Bill—there was a long clause full of definitions—and, as a matter of fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to be allowed to define where he wished, to limit the power of the Bill, and not to be allowed to define where he wanted to extend it. He (Mr. Labouchere) would now move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 15, to leave out from the word "which," to the word "safety," in line 16, both inclusive, in order to insert the words "convened for an unlawful purpose, or with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'which he has reason to believe' stand part of the Clause."

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the words the Lord Lieutenant might, from time to time, by order in writing, to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting "which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety," exactly expressed the object with which the power of stopping these meetings had hitherto been exercised, and the motive with which it would be exercised in the future. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), by his Amendment, begged them not to put themselves under the great disadvantage of having no opportunity of ascertaining what the feeling of the people of Ireland was. The hon. Gentleman's argument was not tenable, because if the Government wished to get at what public feeling in Ireland was, they were not likely to prohibit meetings at which that public feeling would be expressed in a legal, orderly, and quiet manner. They would not prohibit them, however unfavourable that public feeling might be to them and to their existence as a Government. The way the Government interpreted the words of the clause was this—that it would apply to meetings which were calculated to lead to a breach of the public peace—meetings which were calculated—he did not for a moment say intended—it might be indirectly, but which wore calculated to result ultimately in outrage and violence against individuals, or against a class, or which might intimidate individuals, or which might hinder people in the exercise of their just rights. It was meetings of this class that the Lord Lieutenant had prohibited in considerable numbers—no doubt, in the numbers named by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). On that point—and this was, in fact, the only argument he would endeavour to press before the House—he rested on the authority of hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway. They admitted that this power had been very frequently used—they admitted that it was an existing and recognized power. He did not for a moment wish to represent those hon. Members as approving of the exercise of that power. The hon. Member for Northampton said in terms, or implied, that he trusted the present Viceroy. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: I said I would trust him comparatively.] That was hardly what His Excellency had a right to expect from the hon. Member. However, the hon. Member trusted the present Viceroy to a certain extent; but said that within the next three years another Government might come in. Well, he (Mr. Trevelyan) had no reason to think that another Lord Lieutenant would exercise these powers in a manner different to that in which Earl Spencer would exercise them. But suppose he did. Suppose they had an arbitrary Lord Lieutenant and an oppressive Chief Secretary for Ireland, if these powers were intrusted to them and they abused them, hon. Members could avail themselves of their right of protesting. Here they had a power which had been frequently put in force. It was a power which had been protested against by some hon. Members individually; but Parliament, as a whole, approved of it, and it had been put in force for 12 months past, and Parliament, as a body, had never objected to it. The question was—and he did not go farther in argument than that—whether this power had been exercised in a manner which would lead to the least possible public inconvenience, and the least public danger. At present the Lord Lieutenant, as the head of the Executive, and responsible for the public peace, prohibited a meeting where he thought it necessary, and supported that prohibition by collecting on the spot a large military force to overawe all opposition. But it was obvious that that, under certain circumstances, would be a most critical process. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) challenged him to give an instance where the popular leaders had not supported the law. The hon. Member had given a very interesting account of the manner in which, as he had said, under very disadvantageous circumstances, owing to not having had sufficient notice given, he and those acting with him—the priests and the leaders of the people—had turned people away from their settled purpose, in order that there might not be a collision with the authorities. But then there might be leaders—people who called themselves popular leaders, but who led only a very small part of the populace—who might take a very different action to the hon. Member and his friends, and, with them, the only method of enforcing the order of the Executive might be by dispersing the meeting by force, and, perhaps, killing and wounding those who resisted. The 7th clause gave that power. It did not create a power, but gave a statutory power, which, under the clause, in certain cases, would replace the power that existed, and which, under present conditions, might lead to a collision that all would deplore.

MR. HEALY

said, that, according to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the more wrong they did, the more wrong they ought to be able to do. Because the Government had exercised, in an arbitrary manner, a certain power without the smallest show of authority, during the whole of last year, they were to have a legal right to do it. Supposing they were dealing with a people less peaceful and more fully armed than the people of Ireland, what would happen? Suppose the Government issued a proclamation telling a meeting of these people to disperse, and suppose the people did not choose to do so, they might come out with scythes and pikes. There might be scenes such as were witnessed at the famous Peterloo affair. Who would be responsible for such things? Would it not be the Government, who chose to act arbitrarily and without legal authority? But because the Irish people were peaceful and disarmed, and they had acted arbitrarily against them recently, the Government made that a precedent for asking for legal power to do that which they had been doing without authority. That was the sum and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's case—because the people had acted, he (Mr. Healy) would not say tamely, but had, with calmness and with patience, submitted to the unauthorized, harsh measures of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and Earl Cowper, therefore powers were to be taken to do in a legal way what had been done illegally. The Lord Lieutenant evidently could suppress meetings at present if he chose; and, that being the case, it was surely mere verbiage to put such powers as this in the Bill. To say— The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, by order in writing to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety was simply the gilding of the pill. They might just as well say "the Lord Lieutenant may prohibit any meeting in Ireland," because when he wanted to prohibit a meeting, he would at once imagine it to be "dangerous to the public peace or the public safety." The Government might be frank, and strike out all the words after the word "meeting;" but they would not do that. They wished to have, at least, the appearance of acting in a legal and Constitutional manner. Englishmen dealing harshly and arbitrarily with Ireland, whether by Act of Parliament or otherwise, must always soothe themselves with the belief that they were doing everything for the peoplo's good in a regular and proper manner. They could never think they were acting as brigands, because they had an armed force behind them. The fact was, the Government were showing a disposition to throw dust into the eyes of the people of this country; and such an attempt, although it might succeed here, would never deceive the Irish people. Meetings were to be prescribed, and they had sought to be informed of the view of the Lord Lieutenant as to the particular gatherings which were to be put down, but, so far, without success. Was an indoor meeting liable to be proclaimed as well as an outdoor meeting? As far as his own knowledge of Irish meetings went—and he had the fortune to attend a great many, both indoor and outdoor meetings—he was ignorant of disturbance. If a meeting was announced to be held in the Rotunda in Dublin to denounce the policy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would it be proclaimed, notwithstanding that there would be no fear that such a meeting would be Con-ducted in a tumultuous manner? Were indoor meetings to be placed in the same category as outdoor meetings, for some of the former would be very similar in character to the latter? There was very poor accommodation for indoor public meetings in all Irish towns. Save, perhaps, Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and a few other cities, there were very few town halls or public buildings in the country which would hold over 200 people. It appeared to him that the Government were going to proceed on an altogether fallacious assumption. They were going to prohibit meetings; and why? Not only because they would be dangerous to the "public safety," but because they would be dangerous to the "public peace;" and the subsection spoke of "meeting," and not of "public meeting." It would, therefore, be open to the Lord Lieutenant to put a stop to private as well as public meetings; and whose information were they going to act on? Why, on the information of the Clifford Lloyds of Ireland. It would not, in reality, be the Lord Lieutenant who would be exercising the power to prohibit meetings, but the Clifford Lloyds. Ho did not believe that the present Lord Lieutenant would be a bit more careful in his action than any other Lord Lieutenant; he did not believe the stuff and nonsense about the way in which the Liberal Government would carry out the Bill. He would as soon trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson); he would as soon trust the Duke of Marlborough, or whoever ho was, with the power of carrying out the Bill as the present Chief Secretary and Earl Spencer. He did not attach the smallest importance to the Administration which would carry the Bill out, because it would not, in any case, be the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary who would act. The voice, indeed, might be the voice of Jacob, but the hands would be those of Mr. Clifford Lloyd and such like people. The Government would have to act on the information of the local authorities; and he therefore wished to know whether every meeting to be held henceforth in Ireland, whether in the open or indoors, was to be at the mercy of the local authorities? On what principle would the Government act? Would they, at the request of the local authorities, suppress meetings convened for the purpose of advocating fair rents and complaining of high ones, or to complain of the adjudications of a certain Sub-Commissioner? Under what circumstances would the Government act? That might depend on the temper of the Mr. Clifford Lloyds at the moment, and, from first to last, the Lord Lieutenant would have nothing to do. The power would be in the hands of the local authorities—the village tyrants, acting against law and order, and against such power Irish Members protested.

MR. DILLON

said, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for admitting that he (Mr. Dillon) had done nothing against the course of law and order. By the admission of the right hon. Gentleman he had successfully kept the people within the law, and made them obey the laws; and yet a clause was now to be passed which could only have been justified if he and his friends had not exercised their influence. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said that collisions might take place. Therefore, the people were to be punished, by these very stringent powers, for acts which they had not done, and he and his friends were not to get any credit for the influence they had exercised. Was that fair and reasonable? While there was no ground for arguments, there was nothing to support this clause, except that the right hon. Gentleman thought something might happen. He admitted that collisions had not happened during the recent administration of his Predecessor, and he did not attempt to meet the arguments advanced against the clause. He (Mr. Dillon) did not see how the argument was to be met, that this clause would render people who went to meetings liable to punishment; and against that the only argument was an apprehension, which was not shown to be well founded, as to something that might happen in the future. The Act would work against a number of people who might be doing a perfectly innocent thing, and were in no way acting against the law.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, he agreed in the statement that under the existing law the Lord Lieutenant had power by proclamation to prohibit the holding of a meeting, and that it was in the interest of peace and good order that his order should be obeyed. Proclamations of that character had been issued by the late and many previous Viceroys. But this clause enlarged and extended that power which the Lord Lieutenant now had, made his arbitrary will the sole test of the legality of the exorcise of that power, and would render it an offence in anyone to attend once the order was made. At present, it was true, the Lord Lieutenant, after proclamation made, might send down and disperse a meeting; but, though it was the duty of every subject of the Queen to leave quietly on request of the lawful authority, yet the proclamation did not, under the existing law, prevent him from thereafter contesting the legality of the order. That he was correct in the view which he submitted as to the present limital on the power of the Lord Lieutenant, and the effect of its exercise, was shown in the most conclusive manner by the manner in which framers of the Act of 1833 dealt with the subject of illegal meetings. Unquestionably, in that Act, as in the present Bill, a new offence was created; but it was created, not by virtue of the issue of the proclamation, as was proposed in this Bill, but by the notification of the fact of the proclamation. That was shown by the 2nd section of the Statute, which said— And in case any of the persona so met or assembled together shall not disperse or depart within the space of one quarter of an hour from the time of such notice or demand being given shall ho deemed guilty of misdemeanour, and it shall be lawful for them to be indicted for the same. Then there were special provisions, showing that there must be a special notification to those persons by a Justice of the Peace. That section conclusively showed that the framers of the Act meant the misdemeanour to be constituted by the fact of notification. But in this Bill the offence was made punishable on proof simply that the order had been made, and the fact of attending at the meeting. The instant the proclamation was made from Dublin Castle, although it might not be notified to any person, say, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, persons attending a meeting held at half-past 4 in some distant part of the country would be held guilty and liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. When he found that the framers of the Act of 1833—the most stringent Act ever placed on the Statute Book with respect to Ireland—did not give such power, he thought it necessary to introduce a safeguard in the way suggested in the Amendment which stood in his name. He thought the Government could not refuse to amend this clause of the Bill. In reference to the allusion which had boon made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the name of Lord Althorp, let him remind the Committee that though the Act of 1833 was introduced when Lord Althorp was Prime Minister, yet, as he believed, it was in consequence of the passing of that Act and his disgust with its unnecessary stringency that Lord Althorp had found himself compelled to retire from the Cabinet.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that owing to the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), who had special charge of the Bill, the Committee were not in a position to listen to arguments upon the question, and he thought the best thing now to do was to report Progress. It was exceedingly inconvenient to have a discussion on an Amendment when the Minister in special charge of the Bill was not present to be influenced by the arguments advanced, and to reply to them on the one hand, or to give way to their arguments and amend the Bill on the other. He therefore moved to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Biggar,)—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Back to