HC Deb 01 May 1874 vol 218 cc1549-63
MR. OWEN LEWIS

, in rising to call attention to the warning stated to have been given by the Lords Justices of Ireland to the "Flag of Ireland "newspaper, said, he was anxious not to be misunderstood; he did not sympathize with the articles in the paper; he objected to what had been done by the Judges—although, doubtless, acting within the letter of the law—irrespective of the merits of the case as regarded the contents of the articles. Every British subject accused of a crime was entitled to examination and trial in public, and to every opportunity of defending himself; and it was unconstitutional for the functions of counsel, Judge, and juror to be exercised by the same person, as had been done in the case under notice. The conduct of the Government in the affair, too, was unconstitutional and arbitrary, for if the law had been violated, the offender should have been brought to trial, and heard in his own defence—a right enjoyed by the greatest malefactor. That no conviction could be obtained in the case of political prisoners, owing to the prejudices of the juries, he denied, for the Fenian leaders were convicted, as also were certain Dublin journalists in 1867 or 1868. Wherever the case was clearly proved, the Crown could rely on obtaining a conviction, and the Irish people could not be expected to feel respect for the Constitution, if its elementary principles were set aside, when they themselves were concerned. Precept being better than practice, the Government ought to sot the example of scrupulous regard for the letter of the Constitution. If Irishmen were to become as contented as Englishmen, they must be treated in the same manner, and one could imagine what excitement would arise in England if it were announced in The Times that the Home Secretary had given a warning to an English newspaper. He hoped that was the last time such arbitrary measures would be adopted. Perhaps justification might be attempted by the Ministry on the ground that the law had been passed by the previous Government; but if the law were bad, as he thought it was, it was alike idle and unjust to take shelter under any such excuse, for their successors incurred equal responsibility by enforcing it. Already, much evil had been wrought in Ireland by the law, and instead of good being done, discontent and angry feelings were aroused by such an arbitrary proceeding as that which he complained of. The Irish people were no worse than the English publicans, and the Government having undertaken to relieve the latter from oppressive legislation, the former were entitled to similar treatment. The country had never been more peaceful, for the Fenian organization was dead, and the people were devoting themselves to a constitutional organization, working in the light of day. It was inopportune at such a time, therefore, to take a step which would tend to create discontent, and to make Irishmen think it was useless to employ constitutional means to effect their objects. He feared he was pleading for an unpopular cause, but he appealed to Englishmen's love of fair play. He appealed for justice and fair play for his country, and he trusted he should not appeal in vain.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he could not complain of any want of moderation and fairness in the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow Borough (Mr. Owen Lewis), He presumed the subject had been brought forward rather in order to call attention to the circumstances than with any serious wish to obtain the Papers to which the Notice of Motion of the hon. Member referred. As regarded the newspaper itself, it would probably be hardly worth while to have its contents printed for the information of the House, while the warning which had been served was simply a copy of the notice which had been given on similar occasions by the late Government. It seemed to him that the speech of the hon. Gentleman had proceeded cm a mistaken assumption. Probably it was not necessary on this occasion to defend the policy of the Peace Preservation Acts, and, in particular, of the clause that related to the matter now before the House; but he thought the hon. Member had hardly given sufficient weight to the circumstance that the state of Ireland was widely different from that of England. Both in 1870 and in 1873 Parliament thought it necessary, for the better security of life and property in Ireland, that certain exceptional laws should be enacted with reference to that part of the United Kingdom, and among those laws was the clause which gave Government exceptional powers with regard to the Press. Now, in England, those exceptional powers were not required, and, therefore, had never been demanded. If sedition was circulated in England, as it might be in some obscure newspapers, they knew that, thanks to the good sense and loyalty of Englishmen, and to the opportunities they enjoyed of learning the whole of the facts from other newspapers, an independent judgment was formed on the matter discussed, and the seditious expressions practically did no harm. But he was afraid that in Ireland the case was still widely different, for a spirit of disaffection still existed there which might be easily fanned into a flame by writings of the kind to which the hon. Member had referred; and, so far from the people having before them newspapers of every shade of politics, almost the only popular literature circulated in Ireland was of a kind that was unfavourable to the cause of order and loyalty and good government. ["No, no."] Hon Members cried "No;" but to illustrate what he had said, he would quote a passage or two from the articles which had led Government to take the step which had just been criticized. The paper in question was The Flag of Ireland, which had a large circulation among the more ignorant classes. One of the articles to which he alluded spoke of Her Majesty as" the foreign lady that holds Ireland in subjection against their wishes"—that was, the wishes of Irishmen. Again, referring to opinions expressed by Mr. Goldwin Smith in a lettter which had been published in one of the London daily papers, it remarked that they showed "the desperate hopelessness of Ireland's obtaining from England by peaceable means that which her enemies had united in refusing to her." It also pointedly alluded to the Fenian disturbances as the only means by which Irishmen could hope that their grievances would be redressed. He had not come down provided with a copy of the paper, or he would have shown the House in some detail what kind of a publication it was. But he might state generally that its whole tone was contrary to the cause of order and good government. During the war which this country had recently been compelled to wage upon the Gold Coast, articles appeared in this Flag of Ireland speaking of the British Army as if it had been the army of an alien and hostilerace, glorying in the report which came to this country—and which fortunately proved untrue—that our forces, including many Irishmen had been surrounded and cut off by the army of the Ashantee King, and going so far as to express a wish for "more power to the Ashantees." [An hon. MEMBER: What paper is that in?] What paper? The Flay of Ireland. It contained notices of Fenian meetings in America, and portions of the journal of O"Donovan Rossa whilst in prison appeared in it at frequent intervals. And while this was the character of the journal, what had the Government done? To listen to the hon. Member, the House might suppose that the proprietors of this paper had been overwhelmed with ruin. Government had merely done what had been approved, when the Peace Preservation Acts were passing through the House, by hon. Members who were included in what was called the National Party of Ireland. ["No, no."] They had supported the idea of a "warning," with the object of securing that an offending newspaper might not unduly suffer. He had referred to the debates, and had found that an Irish Member well known and respected in the House—he referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan)—said, in supporting the insertion of a clause providing that a warning should be given before confiscation— He trusted the Government would listen to the suggestion that they should first give a warning to the newspaper proprietor before proceeding to the extremity of seizing the plant of the newspaper. This arrangement would have one good effect; a Government would I hesitate long before taking the extreme course, but a warning would be a more simple matter, and could be given without so much deliberation. and might be the moans of rendering it unnecessary at all to have recourse to it."—[3 Hansard, cc. 651.] As a matter of fact, what was this warning? It was what the word denoted, and nothing more. It called the attention of the editor of the newspaper, who might himself have been merely careless in the matter, though he feared that could hardly have been the case with the editor of The Flag of Ireland, to the fact that some of his contributors had been either imprudent or disloyal; and it pointed out to him that he ought to change the tone of the articles in his paper in order to save himself from the penalties of the law. Why, if the Government had brought an action against this newspaper, the mere cost of defending it might have ruined the editor and proprietor, and have placed them in an infinitely worse position than they were at present. He had endeavoured to explain to the House the real nature and effect of the proceeding; he had read passages from the articles on which that proceeding had been taken; he had also explained the mischief which might be done in Ireland by the free and constant circulation of opinions such as he had quoted—mischief which he believed was beyond almost anything which people in England could conceive; and under the circumstances, he trusted the House would be of opinion that in this matter the Irish Government had not exceeded their duty. He could assure them that it was no pleasure to Government to put exceptional provisions of the law into force; but where it appeared to be necessary for the safety of the country, and for the security of life and property, to prevent seditious opinions from taking root among the ignorant masses of the people, Government would not hesitate to take the course which duty demanded.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, the observations they had just listened to were such as they might have expected to hear at the period when there were difficulties in Ireland, and when strong-expressions were uttered throughout the country. At the present time, however, they sounded strange, for the condition of Ireland was now, and had been for the last twelve months, notoriously quiet. The right hon. Gentleman had not brought forward a single truth—nor even a single untruth, to warrant the step which had been taken, and which was calculated to do harm, and arouse angry feelings. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was not there to support The Flag of Ireland, or The Irishman, and much less The Nation. Those journals had the strength of their convictions and the manliness to express their opinions. He was one of those who, having a strong faith in his country, had always advocated its connection with the English nation. [Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen might sneer at him, and hon. Gentlemen behind him might also sneer, for, probably, it was inconvenient that he should express these opinions, but he thought the right hon. Baronet should, before attempting to rule Ireland, inquire what its Constitution was, and not merely refer to olden days. By olden days he meant last year. [Laughter.] It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Woods and Forests to smile; but he thought some respect should be shown to those who had been 20 years in that House, when they rose to express the opinions that were within them. He saw on the other side an hon. Gentleman who attempted to speak last night on Navy administration, and he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) cheered the hon. Member. A friend asked him at the levee that day why he had clone so? and he replied that the hon. Member was talking so extraordinarily, that a cheer would be the best thing to discompose him. And this was the right hon. Gentleman who was attempting to interfere with him now. [Laughter.] He had not risen in his place to be suddenly put down, He had known of many attempts to sit upon men in that House; but he was not going to submit to it. [Laughter.] To hon. Gentlemen opposite the idea of laughing-seemed to be a most charming thing.

MR. SPEAKER

reminded the hon. Baronet that he must confine his remarks to the Question before the House and address them to the Chair.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

went on to say, that when a question affecting the Irish Press was brought forward, hon. Gentlemen opposite attempted to make hon. Members sit down, and laughed at the principle of a free Press in the person of its humble advocate. For the last four or five years he had, with other hon. Gentlemen, attempted to oppose certain measures introduced by the late Government, and as he had ventured in the most respectful manner to express the opinions of the people of his country, he could not understand why his rising on this occasion should he a signal for laughter on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had a majority of 50. He knew that well, and he had never expected that the party he was connected with would at the late election have had a triumphant majority; but, at the same time, his opinion had always been (hat a majority was a disadvantage when it was too great. He complained that the right hon. Baronet had taken an isolated case, instead of considering the general subject of the Press of Ireland: and he believed the argument, that in this instance the power of England was necessary to crush a paper, would have an injurious effect. Last evening, the question whether an iron-clad should have six or eight inches of armour was considered all important to the English nation, and discussed patiently; but it would be known that when the interests of the Irish Press were brought forward, with respect to its freedom of expression, the cry was raised—"We have a majority of 50; sit down, we will not hear you."

MR. BUTT

said, it was somewhat unfortunate that no one had brought before the House the articles in consequence of which the warning was given. The real question was, whether those articles were justifiable or not. He could, in a sense, speak disinterestedly on the point, because the articles contained an attack upon himself. One of them was a reply to Mr. Froude, and said that Irish rebels had fought bravely. That, he believed, was a fact which few would deny. At the same time, he admitted the writer ought not to have described the Queen as "a foreign lady." Still, that expression would have passed unnoticed, but for the publicity given to it by the warning. It was worthy of re-mark that the leading Conservative paper in Ireland, The Dublin Evening Mail, denounced the warning in the strongest terms, and be lived it to be a hoax practised to bring the Government into contempt. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland spoke of a warning as a light matter; but what was a warning? Why, once a warning was given, a paper held its life at the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant. Without charge, without accusation, without notice, the Lord Lieutenant could seize the type, and plant, and everything connected with that paper, and confiscate them Therefore, the effect of a warning was to transfer a paper from the position of a free journal to one actually in chains. These extreme powers were given to be used in extreme cases. If, indeed, seditious language was being employed throughout the country, if there was danger of insurrection, if drillings and seditious meetings were being held, then Government might fairly say—"We are entrusted with those tremendous powers exactly for this crisis, and we must use them." He could understand such language at such a time, and neither the House nor any reasonable man could blame them for holding it. But there was nothing of the kind now. The country was in extreme tranquillity, and therefore Government was not justified in seizing on a mere chance expression in order to use this tremendous power. He believed the language was harmless, and so was that of the other article to which the right hon. Baronet referred, except for the publicity which the warning of the Government had given it. The effect of the arbitrary act of the Government was to attract sympathy to the man whom people would otherwise condemn. It was for the following reason that he strongly objected to the use which had been made of the Act of Parliament in this instance. It was exceedingly unfortunate that the very day when a Nobleman was to enter Dublin—and did enter it—whom the Irish people were willing to receive with the respect due to his exalted rank, and to his character as Representative of the Sovereign, should have been chosen, as if to inaugurate a new system of coercion and repression; and still more unfortunate that, in the evening of that day, a measure of justice and fair dealing to Ireland should have been rejected by that House. He and his Friends would offer no factious opposition to Her Majesty's Government in their dealings with Ireland, and as far as any efforts of theirs could avail to maintain peace and tranquillity in the country they would be exerted; but he believed those efforts would be vain if popular feeling was excited and exasperated by measures of repression which could not be calmly weighed by the people of Ireland. He earnestly hoped the government of Ireland would not be continued in the spirit of this Act. It was true that there had been great discontent in Ireland a few years ago, but that discontent had passed away, and the Government might believe him that they would do more by one warning, like that given, to arouse discontent in Ireland than anything else that he could suppose. He believed, in his soul, that such warnings would make many rebels. If the Government were prepared to use those powers, they ought to be used cautiously. If they were used oppressively, he believed the people of Ireland would lose confidence in the Government. If the Government placed a newspaper in the "dock," the effect would be to destroy its commercial credit. It was a punishment that ought not to be used without public necessity. Were right hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to follow it up? Suppose next week The Flag of Ireland justified what it had done by language such as might be found in many an English writer, for instance, equal to the expression referred to, in speaking of the Queen as "a foreign lady," which, though true in a sense, he would admit was objectionable, were the Government prepared to crush it? If they did so, they might drive the paper into some remote locality to be published; it might, for instance, be published at Holyhead, or any other place out of the country. He hoped the Government would not persevere in such a course; for, if they did, they would do more to revive Fenianism than could be clone by all the seditious speeches and writings which might be tittered and published in Ireland for many years.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

said, he perfectly remembered what occurred in that House when the Peace Preservation Act of 1870 was introduced by one of the most liberal Members who ever sat in Parliament, Mr. Chichester Fortescue. At that period an extraordinary amount of agrarian crime existed in Ireland; the Bill was aimed primarily at that; but, because agrarian crime was found to be often instigated and excited by newspaper articles in Ireland, clauses were introduced for the purpose of enabling the Government to prevent the diffusion of writings calculated to lead to such results. The Government of that day had no desire to interfere with the freedom of the Press; what they desired was to prevent the Press from taking means for the dissemination of incitements which might lead to the commission of the very offences at which the rest of the Bill was aimed. What were called "the warning provisions," therefore, were introduced into the Bill, and they were introduced in the interests of the newspapers themselves. It was pointed out in the House, that men had been held answerable for articles in newspapers brought up cumulatively against them, while if the owners of the papers had had their attention called to their nature they would never have suffered them to be continued. He himself had experience of the fact, for he was counsel in a prosecution in a case in which he had reason to believe that one of the worst articles, on which a verdict was obtained, was not written by the editor of the paper at all, and might have been inserted without his knowledge. The object of a warning, therefore, was simply to inform the editor that whoever had written a particular article had transgressed the law. By calling his attention to it, he was saved from being visited with punishment for want of knowledge of what was passing in his paper. What could be more fair than that before you punished a man you should give him notice that a course was being entered upon which, if pursued, must inevitably lead to that result? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Owen Lewis) who introduced this subject asked, why did not the Government prosecute? That was the very thing to which he would object. He objected to prosecute a person without telling him—"If you pursue such a course we will prosecute you." He would never be a party to the prosecution of a newspaper proprietor for an offence, of the commission of which, he might not have been aware. But it was a different thing when notice was given; the proprietor was then forewarned, and whatever he did afterwards he did at his peril. His hon. and learned Friend who spoke last endeavoured to slur over an expression in one of the articles which led to the warning. That was an expression which ought not to be slurred over. It was no light matter for any man to propagate in Ireland that Her Majesty was "a foreign woman who held possession of the country against the will of the people." He found that another newspaper last Saturday—and he was not certain that the same person was not the owner of both newspapers—pointed to that expression as relating unmistakably to the Queen. Now, such language was not to be confounded with calm historical or philosophic discussion relative to the position of Ireland. That mode of writing of the Sovereign must, he contended, be denounced by every right-minded man. If the paper in question contained nothing but idle, empty, bombastic expressions without meaning, he, for his part, would never urge in that House or elsewhere that the slightest action should be taken against it but would rather leave all such publications to the obscurity which they deserved. The case was however, different when there was a plain, unmistakable expression such as that under discussion; and it was the duty of the Executive, he maintained, to say to the editor of the paper in which it appeared, "Look at that expression. Can you justify it; can you excuse it? It may have been written without your sanction, and published inadvertently. There it is, however, and we wish to point it out to you and to tell you that such language must proceed no further." Such a warning was justified by the principles which had been laid down by Mr. Chichester Fortescue in the warning clauses of the Act of 1870, which were framed to prevent a paper proceeding in a perilous path.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

contended that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had placed before the House a totally wrong issue. That the expression complained of was one which ought not to have been used was the opinion of the people of Ireland themselves, and he protested against its being said that it received the smallest sanction or sympathy either from them or any hon. Member from Ireland in that House. At the same time he regretted that the words of the article itself had not been laid before the House so that they might better determine whether the course adopted by the officers of the Government was merited. What he objected to was, that the law should be put in force by such means instead of appealing to the usual constitutional tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman also alleged that the warning-was given in a friendly spirit to the newspaper; but did he not rather mean to say that on the commission of the next offence an arbitrary use would be made of the law, that the proprietor's property would be seized, and confiscated without trial before a jury. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that within a recent period, persons who had been guilty of similar offences had been prosecuted in the regular way and convicted by juries in Ireland; but the warning of a newspaper by three persons who only occupied office temporarily as Lords Justices certainly afforded a most remarkable illustration of the way in which that country was governed. If Ireland had a regular Government, such a warning would never have been issued, and he would remind the House that public meetings, attended by hon. Members of Parliament, were held in England, at which Republican and Communistic principles were propagated with impunity, and that persons who had attempted to disseminate such principles in Ireland had been hunted out of Cork—one of its cities which was supposed to be most disaffected. Indeed, he defied anyone to succeed in getting up a Republican meeting in the whole of Ireland. Some of those in that country who were mixed up with Fenianism—which he did not for a moment defend—however mistaken their conduct might have been, were actuated by the noblest motives, and he regretted very much that when an effort was being made to win back the people to Constitutional courses, three Gentlemen should have exercised so injudiciously the power which the law gave them for the express purpose that it should be employed only in suppressing grave sedition.

MR. DIGBY

regretted to find that on that occasion the loyalty of Irish Members had been impugned, not directly, but by implication, and he gladly seized the opportunity of expressing in the British House of Commons his titter condemnation of the writing in some of the Irish newspapers. He deplored their language, and fell the most profound contempt for it. When he heard the Chief Secretary for Ireland quote expressions in which the writers exulted in the humiliation of the Imperial Forces and the defeat even of their own countrymen—for Irish soldiers served in the Queen's Army—he could not endure the language such infamous writers employed. But he was sorry the debate had occurred. Why should they question the loyal allegiance of Home Rulers? He could truly say that his motive in joining that body was, that he thought it offered an opportunity of getting at the bottom of Irish discontent, and a fair ground for a real union with this country. He agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last, that it should not he supposed that Irish Members in any way encouraged the miserable and seditious scribes who wrote the articles complained of, and which would never appear if the Government would only place confidence in those who were the recognized leaders of the Irish people, instead of relying on exceptional laws which insulted the country, such as that under which the warning had been given to the paper in question. By enacting these exceptional laws they put Ireland in a position of inferiority. They were unwise because they did not trust to the honour, good sense, and patriotism of the Irish people, and, further, they were addressed more to England and Scotland than they were to Ireland, where public opinion was emphatically condemnatory of them; and to his own knowledge the Roman Catholic priests in the Queen's County did all in their power to prevent their circulation.

MR. RONAYNE

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to say that the notice had boon given in kindness and consideration—in fact, as a warning—that if a similar course was persisted in, it would be followed by a legal prosecution. If that were so, he for one would not object, especially if it were conducted in a constitutional manner; but if the notice was to be followed by a policeman from the Castle with a waggon to take off the presses and types of the establishment, he could not see where the kindness was. There was no denying that disaffection and sedition existed in Ireland, and one principal cause of that was the existence and enforcement of laws of a coercive character. The whole history of that country was a vicious circle of coercion and sedition—sedition because of coercion and coercion because of sedition, and there was no instance of a concession having been made to Ireland except it was wrung from this country by a display of disaffection and disloyalty. That was the case in 1782. upon the declaration of Irish independence. Catholic Emancipation had been wrung from the Government of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel by the terror inspired by the Clare election and the fear of civil war; and they had lately heard the then Prime Minister and Lord Derby declare that it was in deference to Fenianism he had consented to disestablish and disendow the Irish Church. The reason of a great deal of the present inflammatory writing which appeared arose from the fact that Irishmen could not even meet as delegates and select men of thought and position to represent them, and the result was that language was used resenting the despotism with which Englishmen attempted to govern Ireland.

MR. GREGORY

said, he thought that, after the course that had been taken by Irish Members, there ought to be some expression of opinion from some independent English Members. Much of the language used to-night was applicable, not to the present Government, but to that which was in power when the Irish Coercion Act was passed. That language had, however, nothing to do with the question before the House, for the Act was passed almost with unanimity, and the late Government thought it necessary, and the House accepted it on their recommendation. Moreover, there was much reason to believe that the present tranquillity of Ireland was secured by the Act being put in operation—["No, no!"]—and if the Government attempted to withdraw the Act from the proclaimed districts, a protest would conic up from everyone charged with the, preservation of the peace in those districts. ["No!"] At all events, the Act was only put in operation in consequence of the representations of those who were responsible for the peace of those districts. The Act having received the assent of the Legislature, was it to be enforced, or was it to remain a dead letter in the hands of the present Government? It should be remembered that the warning of which complaint was made was not for a single isolated Act or expression, but had been called forth by the whole tone and tenor of the newspaper in question. It was an act of mercy towards that journal as well as to other newspapers in Ireland which might follow in the same course. If a newspaper in this country had been proceeded against it would not have been by a warning, but by an indictment against the proprietors.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was in error in attributing the tranquillity which prevailed in Ireland to the operation of the Coercion Act, he could assure the House, from extensive acquaintance with many parts of the country, that the peace which at present existed in Ireland was not in consequence of the Coercion Act and its application, but in spite of it. He trusted that the Secretary for Ireland would give the House an assurance that after the "warning" that had been given, he did not intend to proceed against any newspaper except in the regular course of prosecution.

Question, "That the said Resolution be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mir. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.

Bill presented, and read the first time.