HC Deb 28 February 1849 vol 102 cc1365-73

Order for second reading road; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."

SIR H. W. BARRON

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, He would confine himself to a very few observations as to its objects, which were three, namely, first, to prevent the confinement of persons accused of petty offences in Ireland in the county gaols of that country for a considerable time, as was the case under the present system. Parties accused of offences of a very trifling description were: at present sent off to the county gaols, which in some cases were thirty or forty I miles distant, at a great expense to the county, to await their trial. Witnesses were obliged to go to the county assizes to prosecute those petty offences; counsel were employed, and considerable expenses otherwise incurred in the prosecution. Some of the parties so accused had to wait seven, eight, nine, ten, or perhaps thirteen weeks, until the commencement of their trials; and if convicted, the Judge could not inflict a heavier punishment than fifteen or twenty-one days. The present system, therefore, was monstrously unjust to the prisoners, as well as to the county. In addition to these injustices, there was another evil. The prisoners so confined previous to their trials, suffered grievously from the overcrowded state of the gaols; disease was engendered, and the greatest possible inconvenience incurred. He himself knew two gaols which were built to accommodate, the one 150, and the other 200 prisoners; the former, at the present moment, was obliged to contain 530 prisoners, and the latter 643. The consequence was, that no classification of the prisoners could take place; the morals and health of the prisoners were injured; and the county was put to an enormous expense for their maintenance. Every one of the parties indicted for petty offences, on the average, costs the country 15l. for prosecution. Was it not monstrous that for a theft of 2s. 6d. or 1s., the county should be put to an expense of 15l. or 20l?. This Bill would relieve the counties from those expenses. The greater part of the details of this measure had been already sanctioned by the Legislature; it was founded on the Dublin Police Act. In fact, this Bill proposed to give to the ma- gistrates, at petty sessions, in Ireland, the same powers as were possessed by the magistrates of Dublin for the trial of petty offences. He had not introduced this Bill unadvisedly. In framing this Bill, he had had the assistance of three of the most experienced assistant barristers in Ireland; one of them was celebrated in Ireland for his knowledge of the law, and his able administration of justice—he alluded to Mr. Berwick. He did not intend at present to enter into the details of this measure; there might, undoubtedly, be many objections raised to those details, some deeming them too stringent, and others too lenient; but to the general principle of the Bill he thought there could be no objection whatever. To those who might contend that the Bill was too stringent, he had only to say that the same stringency had been sanctioned by the Legislature in the adoption of the Dublin Police Bill. The penal clauses had been copied almost verbatim from that Bill, which had been found to work admirably; in fact, not a single complaint had been made against it. One hon. Gentleman, with whom he had had some conversation as to this Bill, had said by way of ridicule that it would prevent him from smoking a cigar in the street. That was a most absurd construction of the measure. It proposed to impose penalties on any party lighting a fire in the public streets, to the annoyance, danger, or alarm of Her Majesty's subjects; and who could pretend that there was any difficulty in understanding the true meaning of that enactment? The hon. Baronet, after some further remarks, concluded by expressing his readiness to listen to any amendment which the House might propose, and which might be dealt with at the next stage of the Bill.

MR. H. DRUMMOND

was not aware of the character of the Dublin Police Act, but if it resembled this Bill, and it were before the House, he should treat it as he would this, and use his utmost exertions to get it rejected. He was sure there was nothing so funny in all the statutes that had ever passed, from the earliest period to the present time—although many of them contained very ridiculous things—as there was in the Bill before the House. It appeared by the preamble that the object of the Bill was, in the first place, to ensure the punishment of offences; and, secondly, to ensure the more speedy trial of offenders; and the means by which it was proposed in the preamble itself to effect that object, was to inflict a penalty of 40s. upon any publican who might sell a glass of gin or other spirits to any boy or girl apparently under the age of sixteen years. The third clause imposes a penalty of 40s. for a vast variety of offences; and, amongst other strange things, it declares that such fine should be inflicted on any person having the care of or driving any cart, car, or carriage, upon any public highway or thoroughfare, who shall ride upon such cart, car, or carriage, without having or holding the reins, and not having some person on foot to guard the same. By another part of the clause the penalty was imposed "on any person who shall break, destroy, or damage any tree or shrub in any public or private walk or garden, or any part thereof;" so that any poor labouring man who might pluck a bit of sweetbriar out of a hedge, might be taken up and imprisoned if he could not pay this fine. By another clause this punishment is extended to any person who shall steal the whole or any part of any tree, sapling, or shrub, or any underwood, or any root or plant, being raised from the soil. Then, again, the sheriffs were bound to obey the orders made by the magistrates at petty sessions, under this Bill. It appears also that constables were to be allowed to act without any warrant or information. According to the 17th Clause, it is enacted, "That it shall and may be lawful for any constable to stop and detain, until due inquiry can be made, all persons with horses, carts, and carriages, which he shall find employed in removing furniture, corn, hay, potatoes, or any other goods, between the hours of eight in the evening and six in the morning, whenever the constable shall have reasonable ground for believing that such removal is fraudulently made for the purpose of evading the payment of rent;" so that any constable, at his own whim and pleasure, may take up and detain any person whom he chooses to suppose that he has reasonable ground for believing that he is fraudulently moving his property; and this can be done without the party so detained or imprisoned being able to obtain the slightest redress. The next clause was of a still more extraordinary character, for it enacts, "That if any person shall be found by night on any land, or concealed in any house, without excuse, such person shall be liable to a penalty of not more than 40s." The next clause also enacts, "That it shall and may be lawful for any constable, and for all persons whom he shall call to his assistance, to take into custody, without a warrant, any persons who, within view of such constable, shall offend in any manner against this Act; and if any person so called upon shall refuse to aid such constable, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 5l." The next clause enacted, "That any person found committing any offence punishable, upon indictment, or by summary conviction, may be taken into custody without a warrant by the owner of the property in or with respect to which the offence was committed, or by his servant, or any person, and may be detained until he can be delivered into the custody of a constable to be dealt with according to law." How could any man put any rational interpretation upon such a clause as that? The 21st Clause declared, "That for every offence against this Act, for which no special penalty is appointed, the offender shall, at the discretion of the justices before whom the conviction shall take place, be liable to a penalty of not more than 2l." By the 23rd Clause, any justice may, without issuing any summons, forthwith issue his warrant for the apprehension of any person charged with any offence cognisable before him, whether or not good grounds for so doing shall be laid before him. It was clear from this and other enactments, that it was intended to permit any Irishman to arrest any other Irishman whenever he pleased. The 31st Clause provided, "That all offences committed, which, under this or any other Act, are punishable on summary conviction before a justice or justices of the peace, may be heard and determined by one or more justices sitting at petty sessions in a summary way, whether or not any information or writing shall previously have been exhibited or taken by or before a justice." The object of this evidently was to prevent any person who had been wrongfully arrested obtaining any redress in the higher courts. It was enacted that no informations in writing were necessary so as to prevent justices issuing warrants without due grounds. Then came the interpretation clause, which was still more extraordinary, for it declared, after having enacted that male persons in certain cases should be probably whipped, "that the masculine gender shall be extended to a female as well as a male." There was, however, one redeeming clause in this Bill, namely, "That this Act shall extend to Ireland alone," for it was in Ireland alone that such a law could be framed.

MR. E. B. ROCHE

congratulated the hon. Baronet (Sir H. W. Barron) on having produced something worse than even the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that from beginning to end, this Bill exceeded all the ridiculous Bills that had ever preceded it. The hon. Baronet should have declared in the preamble that it was a Bill to empower anybody in Ireland to take up anybody, for doing anything or for doing nothing—for, practically, that was the principle of the Bill. He should be glad to know what despotic Act in Ireland might not be justified under the provisions of this Bill? It proposed to make constables and magistrates irresponsible for any act of which they might be guilty in the execution of their offices, however arbitrary or unjust. A great deal had been said about "domestic legislation," but this was "domestic legislation" with a vengeance. He had not risen so much to argue against the Bill, however, for it was only requisite to read it to reject it; but he rose to protest against being considered to be in any way connected with it; conceiving that nothing could be imagined more calculated to render Irish Members ridiculous.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he was anxious to offer an explanation, for his name was on the back of the Bill. He had felt that some such measure was requisite; but he had not been aware of the exact nature of the Bill, of which he had not read a word. He was convinced that legislation was necessary with regard to parties accused of petty offences lying in prison for so long a time; but he could not support this measure. Now that his hon. Friend had called the attention of the Government to the subject, he would probably not think it expedient to persevere with the Bill.

MR. STAFFORD

said, that as hon. Members on the other side had disclaimed all participation in the Bill, he thought it necessary also to say, that Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House had nothing at all to do with it. He thought it perhaps might have been a part of the grand comprehensive scheme of the Government, but it now appeared to be the work of an individual Member.

SIR G. GREY

said, that repudiation seemed to be the order of the day, for he had himself intended to rise before to say, that it was impossible the Bill could be entertained in its present shape; but, after the observations which had fallen from so many Irish Members, he hoped that it would be unnecessary to move that it be read a second time that day six months, as the hon. Baronet would probably withdraw it. Amongst the remarkable defects of the Bill, it might be observed that it created a great number of petty offences, making them punishable by fine; but yet gave no power of enforcing the fine in the usual way, by imprisonment. For instance, a beggar would be liable to a fine of 40s., but how that was to be enforced was unprovided for. The provisions of the Bill had, in fact, nothing to do with the title of it; and he would advise the hon. Baronet to consult with other Irish Members, and especially with the hon. Member whose name was upon the back with his own.

MR. NAPIER

said, that so completely "comprehensive" a measure had certainly never been proposed for Ireland since the legislative Union. Why, one clause referred to "persons, horses, donkeys, or any other animals." So that that "other animal" might be a two-legged or a four-legged donkey. The most "comprehensive" clause, however, was the 30th, which rendered punishable any person who should offend against "this or any other Act of Parliament, who might be arrested by any other person with or without warrant."

MR. H. A. HERBERT

said, the House had probably received amusement enough from the Bill. But he hoped instruction also might be acquired from it—for the people of Ireland had hitherto been in the habit of hearing the repeal or liberal party in Ireland represented as the peculiar protectors and champions of popular liberty. He hoped these professions, in future, would be contrasted with the Draconic code of the leader of the "moral force" repealers of Waterford.

MR. J. O'CONNELL

said, that party had no claim on the hon. Baronet (Sir H. AV. Barron); they repudiated him as a moral force repealer. He might more properly be styled a constabulary force repealer. The measure was objectionable on many grounds; amongst others, it went to revive the disgusting punishment of whipping. He could not think that these extraordinary provisions had emanated from Mr. Berwick, or that he had ever seen them.

SIR H. W. BARRON

said, he would pledge his reputation that he had not drawn the Bill. He had not drawn, neither had he suggested, a single line of it. The Bill was presented to him as the suggestion of three assistant barristers in Ireland, and a chairman of quarter-sessions. Mr. Berwick was the person who corrected and drew up the details of the Bill, and he was one of the most eminent men in his profession. For his own part, he could have no personal interest in the matter, but had merely brought in the Bill at the request of the gentlemen who had placed it in his hands. He believed that there was not a single punishment inflicted by the Bill which might not be by law inflicted in England, and in the city of Dublin also, under its Police Bill, by a more circuitous route. The hon. Baronet then entered into a general defence of the provisions of the Bill, the effect of which, he said, had been distorted by mutilated quotations and half references, and concluded by expressing regret that the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert) should have thought proper to make an attack, which he did not mean to retort, on him personally with reference to a measure in which he could have no personal interest. The hon. Member had referred to him as the champion of the moral force repealers, though he must have known there was no man more bitterly abused by that party than himself. Far from having any identity of sentiment with him, they had given him several contested elections, and there was no man either in that House or out of it whom they more thoroughly detested.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

begged to retract any expression which could be construed into a personal imputation on the hon. Baronet.

MR. REYNOLDS

said, that considering the legal lore which the hon. Baronet alleged had been expended upon this Bill, he had been exceedingly ill-treated in regard to it. As to its provisions, all he (Mr. Reynolds) could say was, that if it were passed in its present shape, the House might safely repeal all the Coercion Acts on the Statute-book. As the Dublin Police Bill had been alluded to, he would say, in respect to that measure, that it was 80 severe that it had in fact become a dead letter. The hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford had said, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kerry, that he (Sir H. W. Barron) was hated by all the moral force repealers. Now he (Mr. Reynolds), as a moral force man, assured the hon. Baronet that he did not hate him at all, and begged to remind him that there was a great deal of difference between hating a man and laughing at him. Not that he was laughing at the hon. Baronet; but he presumed that as the hon. Baronet disclaimed all connexion with the moral force men, he took the other alternative, and belonged to the physical force party.

MR. P. SCROPE

said, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford had distinctly stated that three assistant barristers in Ireland, of great experience, had drawn up this Bill, or consented to its details. If that were so, he submitted to the Government that the names of those barristers should be known, and that a close watch should be kept upon their proceedings; for the provisions of the Bill clearly showed the animus by which they were actuated. He had never before heard powers so despotic and arbitrary proposed to be granted by a Bill. The object seemed to be, to make the magistrates omnipotent. If this Bill had really been prepared by those gentlemen, he thought the views entertained by them of the criminal law were hardly such as to entitle them to the respect and confidence of the Executive Government.

SIR G. GREY

said, it would be extremely unfair to those three gentlemen to condemn them as having drawn up the whole of this Bill, and thereby to cast upon them any obloquy that might arise therefrom, without any evidence whatever of the fact. Gentlemen without professional education, when in conversation with lawyers, might throw out suggestions, which not being perfectly understood, might be assented to; but he could not believe that any gentleman of talent or experience, still less a gentleman accustomed to the administration of the criminal law, could have approved of the Bill before the House in its present form, or have sanctioned its being passed into a law.

MR. F. O'CONNOR

said, such things were not surprising at all in Ireland.

SIR H. W. BARRON

begged leave to pledge his reputation that the Bill was actually drawn up by Mr. Berwick; and he presumed the right hon. Baronet did not intend to impute to him (Sir H. W. Barron) wilful mis-statement.

SIR G. GREY

replied, most certainly not. He had not the least intention of imputing to the hon. Baronet any wilful misrepresentation. What he meant to say was, that mistakes often occurred in conversation upon legal points, when their meaning was not thoroughly understood. As the hon. Baronet expressly stated that the Bill had been drawn up and placed in his hands by an assistant barrister, he had nothing more to say. He had thought there must have been some misapprehension upon that fact; but as the hon. Baronet asserted it, he was far from disputing it.

MR. NAPIER

, as the only Member of the Irish bar present, felt bound to say, that a more respectable or more accomplished gentleman than Mr. Berwick was not to be found in Ireland; and he had certainly heard with astonishment that this Bill had been prepared by him.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.