HC Deb 16 May 1873 vol 216 cc59-74

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)

MR. PIM

rose to address the House—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being found present—

MR. PIM

again rose, and expressed his intention to move that the Order for going into Committee be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, consisting of the Marquess of Hartington and Mr. Secretary Bruce, together with all the Members who represented Irish constituencies.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the hon. Member might move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but the nomination of that Committee must be made the subject of a separate Motion.

MR. PIM

said, in that case, he would now move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. His object was to ensure a decision which would give more satisfaction to the people of Ireland than the voice of the House at large, and he also wished that the details of the Bill should be more deliberately considered than they were likely to be by a Committee of the Whole House. His ulterior intention was to move that the Committee should consist of all the Members who represented Irish constituencies, as it was highly important whenever coercive and repressive legislation was called for, to show to the people of Ireland whether it received the support of the majority of her own Representatives. The fact was that a majority of Irish Members had voted against the second reading, and the Bill was only saved from defeat by the votes of English and Scotch Members. Moreover, he wanted to coerce Irish Members to attend to their business, for not half of them were in the House last evening when the second reading of this Bill was under discussion. If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee of Irish Members, and if the responsibility for the Bill were in that way cast upon them, they would not shirk that responsibility, but would attend the Committee and discuss its clauses; but the majority of Irish Members were absent from the House because the opponents of the Bill knew that opposition in the House was useless, and the supporters of the Bill knew that their attendance was not necessary to secure its passing. He was of opinion that the Bill ought to pass, but must strongly contend that its details required more consideration than they were likely to receive. For that reason he had not voted for the second reading of the Bill; but he would have done so, if he could have obtained from the Government a promise that they would consent to refer it to a Select Committee. He would now conclude by moving that it should be so referred.

MR. CALLAN

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Pim,)—instead thereof.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he thought the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) could hardly be serious in supposing that the Government would assent to the Amendment, because the principle of referring Irish measures generally to Committees consisting almost exclusively of Irish Members could hardly have a fair trial, if it were raised and decided in connection with this Bill. There were the strongest possible differences of opinion among Irish Members in relation to it, and a Select Committee of Irish Members would from the first be sharply divided into two sections, one of which would oppose and the other support almost every provision. The desired experiment could not have a fair trial under such circumstances. One of the great objects of recent Governments was to obliterate as far as possible those unfortunate party animosities which had so long existed; and it seemed to him (the Marquess of Hartington) that instead of tending in this direction, such a Committee as that moved for by the hon. Member would tend to revive those animosities. The hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) had the courage to say what he knew would be unpopular with at least a noisy section of his constituents, and to vote for the Bill, and there might be others who would take a similar course in Committee; but in the main, it would be divided—Catholics opposing Protestants, and the South resisting the North. Farther than that, the proposal which his hon. Friend had made with regard to this Bill was far too important an invasion on the practice of the House to be affirmed without much further consideration and discussion than could now be given to it. When the House referred any matter to a Committee, the Committee was supposed to represent the prevailing sentiment of the House; but could it be said that a Committee composed entirely of Irish Members, with the addition of the Home Secretary and himself, would in any sense be a fair representation of the opinion of the House? Such a proposal could not be adopted in relation to one particular measure, unless they were prepared to adopt it with reference to measures generally. In that case, this might happen, which would reduce the proposal of his hon. Friend to an absurdity—it was quite conceivable that the opinion of Irish Members might be almost unanimous on one side, while the opinion of the House was almost unanimous on the other. So long as they legislated for Ireland, they could not get rid of their responsibility by delegating their functions to a particular section of their Members, and, having supported this measure by an overwhelming majority, they would not commit the consideration of its details to a body which might be opposed to every important provision of the Bill. He, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, he widely differed from the opinion of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, for he (Sir John Gray) contended that the Irish Members who were especially interested in the maintenance of peace and preservation of property and life in Ireland were the very parties to whom the details of this measure should be submitted. Representing different sections of the Irish people and intimately conversant with the state of the country, they were, above all others, the men to examine the details of the Bill, and to say what provisions were necessary and best calculated to carry out the principle on which they were all agreed. All statistics upon the subject from whatever quarter, showed that crime had greatly diminished in Ireland, and coercive measures were quite unnecessary to protect property and punish crime, if the ordinary laws were strictly and promptly enforced. He maintained, in order to the end proposed, that the Government, by utilizing the Chairmen of Counties, who were overpaid for the work they had to perform, might do all that was needed for the repression of crime. Let the Executive, instead of allowing these gentlemen to adjourn their Courts and come up to Dublin to earn fees, or go into the country to amuse themselves, send them back to their counties, and make them sit from day to day, until punishment was inflicted on the guilty, and the evil-disposed were deterred, and measures such as that now before the House might be dispensed with. He was quite willing to give to the Executive all the powers that were needed for the repression of crime, but he was not prepared to arm them with exceptional powers as long as ordinary methods of repression were left unused.

MR. MUNSTER

said, the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland objected to refer this Bill to a Committee of Irish Members, on account of the differences of opinion which prevailed among them. Now, he would appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball), whether that difference of opinion was such as to render the Irish Members unfit to discuss this measure properly among themselves. Another objection of the noble Lord was, that if the House were to refer the Bill to such a Committee, it would be equivalent to delegating its powers so far to the Irish Members. But the empty benches which they saw before them showed that the House was willing enough to delegate its functions of deliberation, though, as would be seen by-and-by, not of voting to the Irish Members.

DR. BALL,

having been appealed to by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. Munster) said, that the proposition to refer this matter to a Committee composed of every Irish Member of the House, with the addition of two English Members, in consequence of their official position, was simply a proposition that Government and Parliament should abdicate their functions and embody the Irish Members as a separate Assembly. That was a proposition of the most serious character, and one which he hoped the Government would never consent to. Neither was he disposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee of the ordinary kind, because the measure had been the subject of careful deliberation in the House before, and had been made as perfect as possible. It was not a new measure, moreover, for it had been two years in force, and it had not been shown that the Executive had abused any of the powers conferred upon them by it.

MR. BUTT,

while maintaining that the proposal for a Committee of Irish Members was justifiable in itself, agreed with the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that it was of too great importance to be discussed incidentally, and expressed a hope that it would not be persevered with on the present occasion. Notwithstanding the majority of last night in favour of the second reading of the Bill, he was in hopes that when the House went into Committee upon it such modifications might be introduced as would greatly tend to reconcile the Irish people to it. He believed that Ireland never would be at peace until there should be, not a Select Committee, but an Irish Parliament, to decide on Irish questions, not in this House, but in Dublin. But as he understood the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim), it was not to delegate the powers of the House to a Committee, because when the Irish Members met their decision would be afterwards reviewed by the House; but it would come before it with all the weight that would attach to the previous deliberations of the Irish Members. He ventured to say that the mass of Business with which the House had to deal would soon force it to some division of labour, like that which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Dublin.

MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK

also expressed a hope that the Motion would not be pressed.

MR. RONAYNE

said, he also joined in the appeal, but took exception to the argument of Dr. Ball, that because the Bill had been passed two years before, it should be passed again. The circumstances were altered; peace existed in Ireland, there was a total absence of crime in the country, and he did not remember during the last 20 years an agrarian murder in Cork or Waterford. Was it, then, a reason for the passing of the Bill that offences had been committed in adjoining counties?

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870, and Protection of Life and Property in certain parts of Ireland Act, 1871, continued till 1st June, 1875.)

MR. BUTT

moved, in page 1, to leave out lines 13, 14, 15 and 16, down to and inclusive of "and." The Amendment, if carried, would not repeal any portion of the Peace Preservation Act, except the Act of 1870, and it would leave the Westmeath Act untouched. Under that Act, the Lord Lieutenant would still have the power of proclaiming any county or district; and when a district was proclaimed, any man having a gun, a sword, or dagger in his possession would be liable to two years' imprisonment. The Bill would, therefore, still give very extraordinary powers to the Government. If ever they were to abandon these stringent measures, it would be better to do so gradually, and he believed that if some modification were made in the provisions of the Bill, it would soften the resentment by which it would be received by the Irish people. There was an intense feeling in Ireland on the subject, and he believed that it would be most advisable for the Government to fulfil their promise, not to continue the unexampled severity of the Act of 1870.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from the first word "The," to the word "and," in line 16, both inclusive.—(Mr. Butt.)

THE O'CONOR DON

supported the Amendment, which he hoped would be acceded to by the noble Lord. He conscientiously believed that all these stringent measures could not be at once abolished; but, gradually, they might be relaxed, and in that way, Ireland might be accustomed to the same laws which were sufficient to maintain the peace of England. If ever these laws were to be got rid of, they must be got rid of by degrees, and if ever a beginning could be made, it was at a time when it was admitted that the state of Ireland generally was tranquil.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, it was impossible for the Government to assent to the Amendment, as he considered they would be guilty of a grave neglect of duty, if they consented not to renew these parts of the Act. What, indeed, would be the use of the Act at all, unless it was fully competent to carry out the object the Government had in view? He denied it was their intention last August, that the Peace Preservation Act should lapse in the present year. What the Attorney General for Ireland then said was, that the House would have an opportunity of considering the question. As to the suggestions just made, he rather doubted whether the gradual abandonment of these restrictions would be prudent. As long as any restrictions existed at all, they should be thorough and effectual, and when the state of the country was such as would justify their withdrawal and a resort to the ordinary operation of the law, the Government would be only too happy to take this course. He knew that the reports of magistrates and constabulary officers were open to the comments which had been made about them; but they could not be produced, because they were made confidentially, and if they were not to be regarded as confidential, they would lose their value. From an examination of them, and in the light of information derived from other sources, he believed it was necessary to renew these Acts. As regarded the county of Mayo, its condition was not satisfactory, because there were as many agrarian crimes in it last year as there were in Westmeath; and he could mention six cases of murder or attempted murder, and of gentlemen who could not leave their homes without the protection of the police. Under these circumstances the Government were certain they would not be justified in relaxing the law in Mayo.

MR. SYNAN

contended that the facts of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not support his argument, because he alleged the existence of agrarian crime as a reason for continuing legislation against treasonable offences. The Westmeath Act was passed to suppress agrarian crime in a small district, and the Peace Preservation Act was passed for the purpose of putting down treasonable offences throughout Ireland. There was thus an essential difference between the two, and the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was to separate the one Act from the other. The noble Lord was bound to continue only that part of the Act of 1871 which was necessary for the purpose of putting down agrarian crime, and to drop that part which related to treasonable offences, for it was not necessary to suspend the Constitution in Mayo for the purpose of taking up a person guilty of Ribbonism.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,

as Chief Secretary for Ireland when the Peace Preservation Act was passed, desired to correct the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), in his statement that that Act was passed solely against treasonable offences. The largest portion of it was passed for the purpose of meeting what had grown into a formidable and widespread outbreak of agrarian crime; but it was far from being confined to the small district of the country in which the Act of 1871 had its operation. It comprised many districts and counties. He appealed to the Committee whether, having once found it necessary to enact such legislation, it was not a very grave responsibility on the part of the Government to decide on the time when it should come to an end. Having in view the putting a permanent end to the evil, it might be found that the greater haste the less speed, and that the premature withdrawal of the Act might defeat the object they all had in view. A patient continuance of powers exercised with great caution would be the best means of bringing about an early and permanent termination of them, and, however rashly such powers might be used in other countries and under other forms of Government, their abuse under our Constitution was practically impossible.

MR. C. E. LEWIS,

as an Englishman representing an Irish constituency, felt himself to be in a considerable difficulty. He had voted with great reluctance in favour of the second reading of the Bill last night, and would also oppose the present Amendment with great regret; but he would certainly support another Amendment which he saw on the Paper, restricting the operation of the Act from two years to one.

MR. O'CONOR

agreed that under the force of public opinion such a Bill might not be harshly administered in England, but it was useless to appeal to this House on any Irish question when the Government had once made up their minds. He maintained that the law as it stood, was perfectly sufficient to put down crime, and was certain that no Irish Member could support a Bill like the one under discussion without exposing his fellow-countrymen to the greatest possible injustice. For that reason he should himself offer every opposition he could to its progress.

MR. MURPHY

also joined in the assertion that the existing law was sufficient for the purpose. Ho protested against the Bill generally, but more particularly against the law which it was proposed to apply to the Press in Ireland.

MR. RONAYNE

thought that, considering the tranquility of Ireland, no case had been made out for the Bill. He could not understand how Englishmen, forgetting their old traditions, could hand over their fellow-subjects to the tender mercies of a Star Chamber in Dublin Castle, to be imprisoned where and as they thought proper, or to give power to arrest on mere suspicion people who had committed no crime. That, surely, was not the way to make Ireland loyal.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 28: Majority 72.

MR. BUTT

then moved the substitution of the word "four" for "five" in line 19, with a view to limit the duration of the Bill to one year.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "four."—(Mr. Butt.)

THE O'CONOR DON

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. There was a chance of the Bill not being renewed if it were continued for two years; and it was very undesirable that such a Bill should be brought in year after year, by which means it would come to be regarded as a matter of course.

MR. BUTT

said, he could not withdraw his Amendment. He did not wish that Bill, like the institution of the Council of Ten in Venice, to be renewed again and again, as a matter of course, till it became permanent; and, instead of renewing it till a new Parliament had assembled, he wished to see whether, with the prospect of a Dissolution, hon. Members would vote for the Bill, or, what was still worse, skulk out of the House to avoid voting.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 28: Majority 79.

MR. RONAYNE

proposed the addition of the following Proviso at end of clause:— Provided always, That Clause 8 of 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be and is hereby repealed. The Act which was now about to be renewed by hon. Members who had never read it, and did not know what it was, was simply a repetition of the Whiteboy Act of 1776, which was passed against tumultuous assemblies in Ireland. It was proposed to renew that Act without the safeguard given by the provision requiring proof to be given that the assemblies were tumultuous.

MR. BUTT

said, that the Whiteboy Act of 1776 was a very severe measure; but the Judges, looking at the Preamble of the Act, ruled that it only applied where there was an insurrectionary state of things. But what did the Act of 1870 do? It substituted the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant for proof of an insurrectionary state. The town of Belfast was proclaimed not long ago, and this Coercion Act came into operation, for which there was no excuse. He would ask whether it was necessary to apply the Whiteboy Act at this time?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he should accede to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MUNSTER

moved the addition of the following Proviso at end of clause:— Provided always, That Clause 15 of 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' be and is hereby repealed. The object of the Amendment was to repeal the clause which gave special powers to search private houses for threatening letters and other documents. There were cases in which, under a search-warrant, young ladies' love-letters had been seized and made public in a police court, and to prevent the recurrence of such things he proposed his Amendment.

MR. BUTT

supported the Amendment, and gave instances in which the powers conferred by the clause had been abused. In his opinion, the clause might be safely dispensed with.

MR. PIM

said, that the clause in question was highly objectionable, and ought not to be retained unless the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland could assure the Committee that it was absolutely necessary.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, that the writing of threatening letters was one of the offences still most prevalent in Ireland, and most frequently referred to in the charges of the Judges. There was no offence more easily committed, or which produced greater alarm or worse consequences. The Committee should bear in mind that the Government did not advocate provisions like this as good in themselves, but because they were necessary.

MR. LIDDELL

commented on the inconvenience under which the House suffered, when legal questions affecting Ireland were discussed, in consequence of the inability of the Government to get an Irish Crown Lawyer returned to Parliament.

DR. BALL

bore his testimony, as an Irish lawyer, to the fact stated by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the sending of threatening letters was one of the most prevalent offences in Ireland, as it was also one of the most cruel, and created an amount of suffering perhaps greater than any other. It therefore required severe laws to repress it.

Amendment negatived.

MR. MUNSTER

moved the addition of the following Proviso at end of clause:— Provided always, That Clause 23 of 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' be and is hereby repealed. The clause in question gave power to the constabulary to arrest, and to the magistrates to commit to prison for six months, persons who were out-of-doors between sunset and sunrise who were unable to give a satisfactory account of themselves.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That Clause 23 of 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' be and is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Munster.)

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

defended the clause as one of the most efficient provisions of the Peace Preservation Act.

MR. BUTT

denounced the clause as a "Curfew" clause, which permitted the arrest of a man who should be found out between sunset and sunrise, and, at the discretion of the magistrate, his imprisonment for six months with hard labour.

MR. MATTHEWS

thought that before such a clause was pressed the House should have evidence of its necessity. How could they, without such evidence, ask a Parliament representing free men to assent to such a clause? He protested against clauses of that character, which involved the liberty of the subject, being passed sub silentio.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

reminded the Committee that the exceptional power given by the clause could only be exercised in the case of specially proclaimed districts. If any districts were specially proclaimed without necessity, the House would have a right to call the Irish Executive to account.

MR. HAMBRO

said, that as an English Member, he would vote against every one of those clauses, provided he saw the Irish Members come down in a body to oppose them; but when he saw, night after night, empty benches, he concluded that the Irish Members had no case against the Government.

MR. RONAYNE

said, that the clause prevented even courting among the Irish peasantry.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 124: Majority 100.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

moved the addition of the following Proviso at end of clause— Provided always, That Clause 25 of 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be, and the same is, hereby repealed. That clause, as it stood, said that it should be lawful for any constable or "other person" to arrest and bring before any justice of the peace any stranger sojourning or wandering in any district specially proclaimed. At the present time there were five counties either wholly or partly proclaimed, and recently the town of Belfast had been proclaimed.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BUTT

moved the addition of the following Proviso at end of clause— Provided always, That no warrant to search for arms under 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be executed before sunrise and after sunset.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he could not accept the Amendment, for he thought that if the police had power to search for arms they should have that power at all times. Returns would be placed on the Table showing cases in which the Act had been put in operation.

DR. BALL

said, that Returns would be of very little use; the real effect of an Act of this kind was not to be found in the cases in which it was put in force, but in the evils which it had prevented.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That Clauses 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, of Part 3 of 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be and are hereby repealed."—(Mr. P. J. Smyth.)

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he could not assent to the repeal of these clauses, but was willing to assent to a Proviso of which the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had given Notice, namely— That no notice given to any newspaper before the passing of this Act, in pursuance of Clause 30 of "The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be sufficient to subject the publisher or proprietor of any such newspaper to any penalty or proceeding in relation to any matter or thing published after the passing of this Act. It had rarely been found necessary to put the provisions of the clauses in force, and then only to the extent of giving warning; in addition, he must say they had been beneficial in preventing the publication of invitations to assassination.

MR. MATTHEWS

condemned the clauses on the ground that they left it to the will and discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to give notice to a newspaper if it merely appeared to him that it contained seditious matter.

MR. SYNAN

urged that the word "treasonable" should be struck out of the 30th clause.

SIR, JOHN GRAY

did not go so far as the hon. Member who had just spoken. He thought treason should be severely punished; but he suggested that the word "sedition" should be struck out.

MR. BUTT

also thought that treason should be severely punished, but it was already provided for by the common law. The words "encouraging sedition" which occurred in the clause had no meaning.

DR. BALL

said, that if the word "sedition" was struck out, it would only raise the question in every case whether an offence which might be really treasonable was not one of mere sedition. The end of the clause would be defeated if seditious offences were excluded from its operation, for the power was only given because they had confidence in the Executive. He would freely admit that the power ought not to be exercised except in cases where the public interests imperatively demanded it.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, that the Irish Government would only be able to exercise these powers subject to investigation of the matter in a Court of Law, by proceedings taken against by the party aggrieved for damages and compensation.

MR. BUTT

said, he was not so certain of the proper exercise of the power for the future. In any case the paper would be suppressed first, and after the wrong was done there could be an action for damages; so that there would be punishment first and inquiry afterwards.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 111: Majority 86.

THE O'CONOR DON

moved a Proviso, repealing the 39th clause of the Peace Preservation Act, which enabled grand juries to fine districts in which agrarian crime had been committed.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That section 39 of 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be and is hereby repealed."—(The O'Conor Don.)

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 85: Majority 72.

On the Motion of Mr. BUTT, the fol-following Proviso was agreed to, and added to the clause— Provided always, That no notice given to any newspaper before the passing of this Act, in pursuance of Clause 30 of 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be sufficient to subject the publisher or proprietor of any such newspaper to any penalty or proceeding in relation to any matter or thing published after the passing of this Act.

MR. BUTT

then moved the addition of the following Proviso, at end of clause— Provided always, That so much of the 3rd Clause of 'The Protection of Life and Property in certain parts of Ireland Act, 1871,' as enacts that no writ of habeas corpus shall issue to bring up the body of any persons so arrested, committed, or detained shall be and the same is hereby repealed.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he would, make inquiries, and if it was not really necessary to retain the original words they should be taken out.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided also, That no person committed under this Act shall be detained in prison for a longer period than six months without being brought to trial."—(Sir John Gray.)

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

opposed the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 46: Majority 34.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.