HC Deb 30 June 1868 vol 193 cc410-8

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [12th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(The Earl of Mayo.)

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. BAGWELL

said, this Bill was intended simply to extend to Ireland the law at present in force in England with regard to the employment of military at elections. Unwilling voters ought not to be escorted to the poll by soldiers for the purpose of being made to vote on the unpopular side, in accordance with the opinions of their landlords. The real truth was that the soldiers were employed not so much to protect the voters from violence as to prevent them from running away. In the county of Waterford at the late election the people were very anxious to support the Liberal candidate, whose father had represented the county before, and was highly popular. It happened that in a mountainous district a body of voters who were being brought under military escort to record their votes in favour of the unpopular candidate were stopped by a multitude of men and women, who refused to allow them to proceed. The resident magistrate who accompanied the troops, a man of great prudence and, at the same time, great determination, told him that he had scarcely pulled the Riot Act out of his pocket, when on looking round he saw that every one of the voters had made their escape. The fact was that it was the friends and neighbours, the sons and brothers of the voters themselves that had stopped them, and the voters were only too glad to get an excuse for running away. The success of the mountaineers on that occasion had the very worst consequences, for it was looked upon by them as a victory over the Queen's troops, while the troops, on the other hand, were greatly exasperated. The following day there were two tragical events in Dungarvan; the harbour master of the town, a man who had always been on the Conservative side, was struck with a lance by one of the soldiers and killed at his own door, and another man in humble position was also killed. A verdict of "wilful murder" in the one case, and "manslaughter" in the other, was returned. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: By a coroner's jury.] That was so. The soldiers were never brought to trial, for every opposition was given by the military authorities to the attempts that were made to find out the guilty parties. [The Earl of MAYO: That is quite contrary to the fact.] All he could say was that the soldiers were not brought forward for identification. [The Earl of MAYO: They were.] The noble Lord spoke from official knowledge, and therefore he would take it for granted that what he said was correct. But, at all events, he had stated what he had seen happen over and over again at elections, and he believed that it was decidedly impolitic, dangerous, and unconstitutional to employ the troops as they were now employed. The same things would happen at elections again, and at last some great disaster would occur. Then the Government would see that they had been wrong, and would consent to puss a Bill such as that which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Serjeant Barry) had introduced.

MR. SYNAN

said, as an Irish Member, he thought the Bill was of some importance. It was one of a very simple character. It was a Bill to extend to Ireland a law which had been confirmed by a statute of George II., and by a subsequent statute of Her Majesty. The Resolutions of that House from time to time, commencing so far back as a declaratory Act of Edward I., repeated the words of the Act which he should now read to them as dealing with the constitutional question—namely, "That all elections be made without interruption or molestation by any commoner, governor, officer, or soldier." The Act also said "that all elections shall be free," and that it was essential to the rights and liberties of the people that it should be so. It further enacted that, as it had been the practice to remove all soldiers two miles out of town where an election took place, that should be so in future, only certain exceptions being made with respect to Royal troops in attendance on the Sovereign or Royal Family, and any person in the army entitled to vote. Then came an Act of the present reign, reciting the Act of George II., in which it was said that great expense was involved by the removal of the soldiers, and in which it was enacted that the soldiers be confined within barracks within two miles. That was the constitutional and Common Law of this country, directly aimed at attaining an object which was now of very vital consequence indeed in Ireland—namely, the freedom of election. They had lately been discussing in that House the provision of an Act for securing purity of election; but it appeared that at the present time freedom of election was more assailed in Ireland, and that that vice ought to be provided against. The state of this country at the time of the passing of the Acts referred to appeared to have been similar to what Ireland now was, and he could say with regard to Ireland that the purity of election in Ireland was seldom, indeed, in any way violated or corrupted. That being the state of things, one would suppose that, primâ facie, there would be no objection from any Member of this House on either side to so simple a Bill as this. As an hon. Member had stated, whenever a proposal was made in that House to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England, the onus probandi rested with the opponents to show why the law should not be assimilated. He might say that the onus probandi laid with Her Majesty's Government to show why this Bill should not be passed—to show why they considered it improper, imprudent, and dangerous to extend the law of England to Ireland. He understood the noble Lord last night to assume the fact that there were exceptional circumstances in Ireland, and that therefore the law in England and Ireland ought not to he assimilated in this respect. But he apprehended that the assumption of the exceptional circumstances was not proof that the law ought not to be assimilated. The noble Lord said these troops were used with great prudence, and went on to show that the exceptional circumstances rendered it desirable that the law should remain as it was. The noble Lord stated that the law ought not to be assimilated; but these are no arguments against assimilation. He (Mr. Synan) did not like to make any particular mention of any particular boroughs, as that would be invidious; but he ventured to say this, that upon on examination of the Reports of Committees upon the subject it would be found that there had been more violence proved against representatives of the boroughs in England than in the Irish boroughs. He contended, therefore, that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant a different law as to Ireland to that which applied to England on the subject. He admitted there were exceptional circumstances; but he denied that they could be urged as reasons for not assimilating the law. As regarded the elections, generally speaking, of course if there be not any particularly strong political feeling among the electors there was likely to be no hostility whatever between the proprietors and the rural voters, who, as far as the counties were concerned, were three-fourths tenants-at-will. But when any particularly exciting question arose—when the feeling was strong on both sides, this is what occurred—The landlord requested of his tenants to vote against the known and avowed political opinion of the tenant, and the known and avowed political opinion of the non-electors. When the ballot was asked for the purpose of protecting the Irish voter, the answer given was that the elector held his vote as a trust for the non-elector. The non-elector expressed his opinion; opinions were expressed on both sides; the elector not wishing to vote found out that the non-elector would not allow him to go to vote; the local agent, who might be a justice of the peace, took the matter in hand, and there was an order for the military. There was nobody to ascertain the opinion of the voter or of the non-elector. The order goes forth for the troops. The night before the election the electors were collected together: sometimes they were sent into the hotel, and sometimes taken into the house of the landlord for safe custody. But they got warning that they were to be escorted by the troops. The non-electors of the district, among whom were the families of the very voters themselves, met the troops and pelted them with stones. The troops then rushed at the mob, and the voters rushed off the cars and ran away: that was the invariable thing. These voters wanted an excuse to say to the landlord that they had done all they could to vote, but that they were prevented. An inspector of constabulary was examined in the Waterford case, and he said that when he came up to the place the voters had escaped, because, he said, the dragoons were not fit to escort them. Now, they made that which was a popular force in Ireland unpopular. The Irishman was by nature a soldier. He wished to join in the conflicts of war; but when they made the military force unpopular in Ireland they prevented that which ought to make Ireland a recruiting ground for the army. There certainly did not appear any exceptional circumstances of a nature to prevent an assimilation of the law of Ireland to that of England in this respect. There were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the use of the military. Whenever they asked for remedial legislation in other matters, and showed exceptional circumstances to warrant legislation, the answer they got was, "You cannot have remedial legislation. The law of England must be the law of Ireland. We cannot have one law for the one country and another for the other." The exceptional circumstances in Ireland were those he had shown, and they were such as to warrant, not to prevent, that House assimilating the law of Ireland to that of England in that respect. Fie came now to two extraordinary Acts of Parliament, which seemed to make the case conclusive. The Act of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 62, enabled a party who complained of not being allowed to vote to make application to the sheriff who was obliged to postpone the polling until voters came to the poll. Was that law enforced? No. In thousands of cases it had been proved that the voters did not want to come. They wanted an excuse; therefore, the military was of use for the purpose of taking away from the voter an excuse for justifying his absence, and for the purpose of coercing the public opinion of the district. There was another Act of Parliament which showed the total want of any necessity for this practice in Ireland. It was the Act of 13 & c 14 Vict. c. 68, which enabled the voters to apply for as many polling-places as they liked. They did not take advantage of that power—they did not want it—therefore, neither of those Acts of Parliament were put into operation for the reason he had stated. It appeared to him that upon all the circumstances of the case, there was no reason whatever why the law of England and Ireland should be different in that respect; and he thought, both in an Imperial point of view and in a point of view confined to Ireland, it would be a great advantage to both sides of the House if the law were assimilated. It would teach the Irish people that that House had that confidence in them that they would make a law to enable them to exercise their votes free from all control from whatever quarter it might come.

MR. BLAKE

, in supporting the Bill, said that the military employed at Irish elections were really no other than election agents. He did not blame the noble Lord, who, when requisitions were sent to him, had no option but to send the military and escort voters who, at the bidding of the Conservative agents, were about to vote against their inclinations. Voters so escorted were looked upon by the people as prisoners; and, in proof of this, a party of convicts who were handcuffed, and were, unluckily, proceeding to their destination on the day of the County Waterford election, were carried off by the mob, against all the efforts of the constabulary. He had himself been assured by voters who were escorted by military to the poll that their earnest prayer was for the success of the candidate against whom, for want of leases, and for Tear of being turned out of their holdings, they were compelled to vote. The first step towards establishing freedom of election in Ireland would be the passing of this Bill, and he hoped it would be carried by a large majority.

MR. O'BEIRNE

said it had always been a principle of the British Constitution to look with the greatest jealousy on the employment of military at elections. By the ancient Common Law of this country all elections ought to be free, and an Act provided that previous to English elections the troops should be removed from the places of election to a distance of two miles. The onus of proof that in Ireland there were exceptional circumstances which prevented the carrying out of that principle in that country lay upon those who opposed this Bill. It was most impolitic to irritate the feelings of the Irish people against the military by employing them at elections. Irish elections might be conducted without the presence of troops at least as safely as English elections. The measure was founded on justice and expediency, and he was surprised that opposition to the Bill should come from the other side. Ireland was not behind England in its aspirations for military glory; but the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland had admitted that the 12th Lancers had been received with execration at Dublin.

THE EARL OF MAYO

denied that he had ever said that the 12th Lancers were received with execration; he had said that they were received with some hisses.

MR. O'BEIRNE

continued to refer to the enactments against the employment of the military at elections in England, and contended that no election proceedings in Ireland had ever exceeded in brutality the exhibitions of an English mob at the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Lowe's) election for Kidderminster in 1857. In this unfortunate affair two persons lost their lives who had taken no part in the affray. He wished that the danger of the recurrence of such scenes should be obviated by the most stringent enactments. He deeply regretted that any such occurrence should have taken place, because it was calculated to shake the foundation of that affectionate confidence which had always subsisted between the people of Ireland and the soldiery of England.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

thought the time was come when they should put an end to the exceptional legislation which had been too much in vogue for Ireland. He did not believe that the present system was a fair one, and because it was not justifiable he thought that proper amendments should be effected.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)

said, that the arguments advanced in support of the Bill, divested of exaggeration, were conclusive against it. The employment of the military at elections was alleged to have occasioned mischievous results; and yet the only instance that had been adduced was that of Dungarvan, in which it was not clearly established that the military were responsible for what occurred. The next argument which had been urged in support of the Bill was that it was desirable that the laws of England and of Ireland should be assimilated. In his opinion, however, if any alteration were made, the law of England ought to be assimilated to; that of Ireland, for at Nottingham and Kidderminster there had been outrages of a kind almost unknown in Ireland. The English law in regard to the employment of the military at elections was founded on the assumption that the power of the Crown might be used to control the electors; but the history of Ireland did not record a single case where the Crown had, since the Union, exercised its influence at elections by means of the military. It had been argued that the present measure would promote freedom of election; but in answer to that it was sufficient to remark that the military were employed in Ireland not to coerce the voters, but to protect them from the violence of excited mobs. Speaking in reference to his personal knowledge of the West Riding of the county of Cork, and of some other districts, he could affirm that the tenants were perfectly aware that their interests were identical with the interests of their landlords, and that the great majority of them would vote with their landlords if they were not coerced in the opposite direction by the spiritual power of the priesthood.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, it was unfortunately true that instances had been known in Ireland of bands of tenants being brought up and forced to poll under the terror of the bayonets of the military. On every occasion when party feeling was strongly excited they had had these military riots. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have utterly forgotten the case of Six Mile Bridge in 1862, when several persons were bayoneted. The military were used as the electioneering agents of the landlord; and it was to put a stop to such abuses that they wished an effective measure to be passed. If they really wished for freedom of election, why not take the reasonable and practical mode of ensuring the freedom of the voters? Nothing could be more inconsistent than to give perfect freedom to the electors in England, and, at the same time, to place the whole armed force of the Crown at the disposal of the landlords, for the purpose of coercing their tenantry to vote against their consciences, and driving them up to the polling-booths like prisoners. That was a state of things demanding a remedy, He did not complain that the influence of the Crown was exercised wrongfully; but he maintained that the power of the military was. He held that it was the duty of Parliament to equalize the laws of England and Ireland.

LORD CREMORNE

remarked that in the county which he had the honour to represent a case occurred where a man was killed in consequence, not of the presence of the soldiers, but of their absence. He was afraid that that circumstance would prevent him from voting in support of the present Bill.

MR. ESMONDE

supported the Bill. He claimed that the troops were attacked in the first instance by the populace at Waterford. He would mention to the House a case which had occurred during an election at which he was a candidate. Forty voters belonging to a friend of his—[Laughter.]—Why, hon. Gentlemen seemed disposed to treat this high moral question very lightly. Those forty voters belonged to a friend of his own. He was not going to enter into a disquisition as to his friend's title to those voters. His friend had had the bad taste to order them to vote against him; hut, in order to avoid doing so, the voters requested that a "mob" might be sent out to stop them on their way to the poll. They further requested that they might be stopped near a wood, in order that they might get into it and avoid being caught again. He had reason to believe that the desired movement had been duly executed. Some of the voters polled for him, as his friend had not been able to recover the whole of his property after they got into the wood. It was to maintain the landlord's right in such property the military were employed at elections in Ireland. He believed the military would he delighted to be relieved from the duty of attending at elections.

MR. SERJEANT BARRY

, in replying, reminded the House that, in the matter of the Westminster election, the House had passed a Resolution condemnatory of the employment of military at elections. It had been stated that the 12th Lancers, who had acted on the occasion of the Dungarvan riots, were hooted while forming part of the escort on the entry of the Prince and Princess of Wales into Dublin. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland had accused him of bad taste, because he had mentioned that circumstance in a former debate. The noble Lord's explanation of the circumstance was as extraordinary as that which he gave of the sense in which he had used the words "levelling up." [The Earl of MAYO: I never used the words.] Well, it was as extraordinary as the noble Lord's explanation of the sense in which he had used the words "elevation, and not confiscation."

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 96: Majority 41.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill put off for three months.