§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 3 (Continuance of Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870, subject to Amendments and modifications).
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 37, to leave out the words—"When any person is charged in any proclaimed district before any justices of the peace assembled at petty sessions." He considered that to give the magistrates such a power of summary jurisdiction would be dangerous when political questions were involved. The first time that summary jurisdiction in degree was given to magistrates in Ireland, under any Coercion Act, was in 1870. That power was, however, limited; but, by the present Bill, it was for the first time proposed to give an extension of power to the magistrates of Ireland which they never possessed before. He believed that the Irish magistrates were as pure as any magistrates in the United Kingdom; but he considered the summary jurisdiction which the magistrates assembled in petty sessions possessed was too great, and the object of his Amendment was to do away with the power as exercised under the Acts of 1847 and 1870.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the power of summary jurisdiction applied only to the restriction upon the possession of arms, and he had introduced it in the interests of persons accused, his experience on the English Bench having shown that defendants often preferred to be dealt with summarily instead of being committed for trial and having a charge hanging over their heads for an indefinite period. He would accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan), that a case should be dealt with summarily only with the consent of the accused, and he was prepared to reduce 1895 the term of imprisonment from six months to three in the hope that the clause would not be opposed. The main reason for the insertion of the clause was that it would tend to a speedy and cheap administration of justice in Ireland.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGthanked the right hon. Baronet, and said that he was willing to accept the compromise, and, on the statement just made, would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On the Motion of Mr. M'CABTHY DOWNING, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 41, after "think fit" insert the words "and if the person so charged shall himself desire it;" and in page 3, line 4, strike out the words "with or without hard labour."
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 5, to leave out "six," in order to substitute "three" months as the term of imprisonment.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGhoped that the usual limit to the magistrates' power of imprisonment would in this case, as in others, be two months, or a fine of £5.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought that three months was the more usual term; and it should be borne in mind that the magistrates could, if they thought fit, limit the imprisonment to two months or any less term.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Word substituted.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 10, after "if," insert "the person charged shall object to having his case summarily disposed of; and shall require same to be sent for trial in the ordinary way or if."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)could not accept the Amendment, as he did not think it would be workable.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. FAY), moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 22, after "cause," insert "and such dismissal shall in every case carry with it the costs and expenses of the person charged against the prosecutor or prosecutors."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, it was quite impossible for him to entertain the Amendment, or anything of the kind. Of course, in the case of a malicious prosecution the accused could recover costs in the ordinary way.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, as the Amendment was not his own, he did not feel justified in withdrawing it.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the Crown being the prosecutor, costs could not be recovered against the Crown. Under the present law a magistrate had power of ordering costs. Therefore, there was no necessity for the Amendment.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words, "and sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding one month." The object which he had in view in moving that Amendment was to give an accused person a right of appeal against the decision of the magistrates. A man might be accused wrongfully, and sentenced to imprisonment; and it would be a great hardship, and a most serious act of injustice, to deny him the right of appeal against the sentence when he would have the right if he was fined one pound and a penny.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words "and sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding one month."—(Mr. Downing.)
SIR GEORGE BOWYEEhoped Her Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment, as it would be a most serious punishment to imprison an innocent man a month without the right of appeal. He thought that there should be an appeal in cases of imprisonment even though the period was less than a month.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PIATNKET)hoped the Amendment would not be pressed as he could not consent to it. He would remind the Committee that a prisoner had the option of being tried at the Assizes. He could not be tried summarily by the magistrates unless by his own consent. The Government had followed the precedent of the Irish Petty 1897 Sessions Act, and under the circumstances he had stated he could not see the hardship which had been complained of as likely to be inflicted.
§ MR. MELDONexpressed his intention of voting for the Amendment. The right of appeal as it stood was in a very unsatisfactory state. Over and over again persons fined £1 or a smaller sum applied to be fined £1 1s., so as to obtain the right of appeal, and there was much greater hardship in cases of imprisonment. They would have prisoners applying to be sentenced to more than a month's imprisonment, for the same reason if the Amendment were not accepted, as he hoped it would be by Her Majesty's Government.
§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGUwas of opinion that the Amendment ought to be adopted by the Government. It would be a most serious thing to imprison a man, even for a day, without giving him a right to appeal against a sentence which, he being innocent, might ruin him in the estimation of his neighbours. Take, for instance, a respectable farmer. Such a sentence, without power of appeal, would be ruinous to him, and would embitter his future life. Surely it would be right that a man should have the power of proving before a higher tribunal that he was not a criminal. He was thus far in favour of his hon. Friend's proposal.
§ MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment, and contended that such summary power of jurisdiction should not be given to the magistrates.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANstrongly disapproved of the power of summary jurisdiction being placed in the hands of the magistrates. He supported the Amendment, and hoped the Government would accept it.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it should be remembered that the cases referred to were those in which the persons accused consented to be tried before the magistrates, and if they so consented they must take the consequences. What was now proposed was that an exception should be made from the general operation of the law, and he did not see why, if they were comvicted, they should be placed in a better position than persons tried at quarter sessions. He saw no reason for such an exception, and hoped, therefore, that the clause would be left as it stood.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out, in reply to the Chief Secretary, that that legislation altogether was of an exceptional character, and he thought that if an appeal was given where a man had been sentenced to be imprisoned for a month and a day, it ought not to be refused where the term of imprisonment was only a day less. He could not see why, because a man elected one of two modes to be tried, he should be deprived of the right of appeal.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that depriving a man of the right of appeal would cause the decisions of magistrates to be looked upon as odious in the extreme. This was a case where it would be justifiable to make some departure from the ordinary law and allow an appeal.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENmust protest in the most emphatic manner against the power of summary jurisdiction proposed by the clause to be placed in the hands of magistrates. Imprison an innocent man without the right of appeal and you ruin him for life. The power proposed was most arbitrary, and he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words 'and sentenced to a term of imprisonment' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 187; Noes 110: Majority 77.
MR. SULLIVAN (for Mr. BUTT)moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 33, at end, insert—
Every proclamation heretofore issued under any of the Peace Preservation Acts hereby continued, and which shall at the passing of this Act be in force in any district in Ireland, shall, unless previously revoked, continue in force and effect until the first day of August next, and no longer.The effect of the Amendment was that in putting this measure in force the Government of Ireland should begin as it were with a clear board.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 3, line 33, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "every proclamation heretofore issued under any of the Peace Preservation Acts hereby continued, and which shall at the passing of this Act be in force in any district in Ireland, shall not continue in force and effect after the first day of August next, unless previously renewed."—(Mr. Butt.)
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, if the Amendment was adopted, and the 1899 Bill became law, it would affirm that it was necessary that power should be continued to the Lord Lieutenant to impose by proclamation certain exceptional laws upon such parts of Ireland as he thought fit, and, at the same time, every proclamation now in force would be revoked. That, he thought, would be a perfect absurdity. Under the Bill as it stood, the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant in continuing a proclamation was just as great as that of issuing it, and they might rely upon it the Irish Government would not keep any district under proclamation longer than was absolutely necessary.
§ MR. BUTTthought this was a very important Amendment. He obtained a Return last year, and found from it that all the proclamations which had been issued in 1866 were still in force in a great many districts in Ireland. They seemed to be retained as a matter of course, for there did not appear to be any inquiry instituted as to whether they were still necessary. The Chief Secretary had said there was as much responsibility in continuing as in issuing these proclamations, but he would like to know at what particular time that responsibility arose. All that was desired in proposing the Amendment was to make that responsibility distinct. He had the fullest confidence in the promises of the right hon. Baronet, but he wanted to embody in the Bill the pledge given by him that proclamations should be re-voiced in districts where they were not needed. The right hon. Gentleman said these proclamations were necessary in some counties, but which counties were they? And if it was intended to drop the restrictions gradually, why did not the Government bind themselves to do it? If the right hon. Gentleman wished to protect himself let him give himself the protection pointed out.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERthought there was a good deal in the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that as they were continuing these Acts for another five years there was some ground for saying it should be made quite clear by the Bill itself that they expected from the Executive Government that it would examine whether these proclamations were really necessary. He would suggest, therefore, that the object of the hon. and learned Member would be better attained if the latter part of his Amendment were struck out and words 1900 were substituted providing that the proclamations in question should "not continue in force and effect after the 1st of August next unless previously renewed."
§ MR. BUTTacceded to the suggested alteration. The difference it would, make was very trifling, but it appeared to be an improvement. The same words had occurred to himself, but he rejected them, because they seemed to be clumsy. He would, however, move the Amendment as altered by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. He thought it was a remarkable fact that although the late Government, of which the right hon. Member for Bradford was a Member, brought in a Bill of that kind in 1870, which they afterwards renewed in 1871 for two years, and again in 1873 for another two years, yet on none of those occasions did they insert any such provision as the right hon. Gentleman now suggested, fettering the discretion of, and expressing a want of confidence in, the Irish Government. The inference to be drawn from the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this—that he had no confidence either in the promises that had been given, or in the Irish Government. If they accepted that Amendment, it would be assumed that every part of Ireland was primâ facie in a state that would not justify the continuance, even in a modified form, of that measure. If the Government believed that to be the case, they would not have asked the House to renew that Act at all, and certainly not to renew it for five years. For his own part he had promised that when the Bill became law, he would carefully look into the circumstances connected with each proclaimed district, and he should do so in the hope that the Government would be able, consistently with law and order, to withdraw the proclamations from several districts and counties of Ireland. Having said that, he asked the Committee to put confidence in the Government, and not fetter its action.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in answer to the charge of inconsistency made against him by the Chief Secretary, said, that the right hon. Baronet must have forgotten that there was a considerable difference between continuing such an Act for two years and continuing it, as was now proposed, for five years. Moreover, 1901 it did not follow that what the late Government thought was necessary some years ago for Ireland was necessary now; and the present Government themselves were making alterations in that code, because they did not think the state of things was the same now as it was before. All that the Chief Secretary was now asked to agree to, was to put into the Bill what he had just promised that the Government would do. That was only fair, under the circumstances, in a matter affecting the liberties of Ireland. He did not wish to fetter in the slightest degree the action of the Irish Government; but he thought hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House should not be charged with want of confidence in the Government now in office, simply because they held that it would be better for all persons to know what was going to be done, and that such intention ought to be stated in the Bill.
§ CAPTAIN NOLAN, with all due respect for the Chief Secretary, was not prepared to give him the unlimited power which he claimed over the liberties of the people of Ireland. He gathered from the remarks of the right hon. Baronet that the people of Ireland were to trust to him. Well, he might be a very good Chief Secretary in his own estimation, and he (Captain Nolan) had nothing to say on that head, but he would call his attention to the fact that whilst in all the important divisions yesterday there were 40 Irish Members against him, there were only 20 with him. That was an evidence that in Ireland the people did not feel that wonderful confidence in the Irish Chief Secretary which was expected of them.
§ MR. FRENCHwas sure they might put implicit confidence in the promises made by the right hon. Baronet; but they had no guarantee that he would continue in his present office for five years. In that case, the next Gentleman who might be appointed to the office might not consider himself bound by the promises now made by the right hon. Baronet, and they ought to have some guarantee against such a contingency as that.
§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCK, expressed his full concurrence in the observations of the right hon. Member for Bradford.
§ MR. MELDONsupported the Amendment, as he wished to make it imperative on the Government to consider im- 1902 mediately those proclamations which ought to be withdrawn, and those which ought to remain in force.
§ MR. BUTTsaid, he was willing, if the right hon. Baronet thought the 1st of August was too soon, to give him to the 1st of September or the 1st of October to reconsider these proclamations. All he wanted was that they should be reviewed at some fixed time known to the public.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 203: Majority 61.
§ MR. BUTT (for Mr. O'REILLY)moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 33, at end, add—
Nothing heroin contained shall have the effect of continuing the seventh and eighth sections of the Act passed in the eleventh year of Her Majesty, entitled An Act for the better Prevention of Crime and Outrage in certain parts of Ireland until the 1st day of December, 1819, and the end of the then next Session of Parliament;' and from and after the passing of this Act the said sections shall he and the same are hereby repealed.Its object was to get rid of the special police tax, levied on an area arbitrarily determined by the Lord Lieutenant, a tax which was very oppressive in incidence, the more so as the Constabulary was not a civil force, but an army of occupation. There were districts in which the tax, added to compensations for outrage, had amounted to 6s. in the pound, a burden which had ruined some undoubtedly innocent persons, as the payment incurred under it fell upon the best behaved classes of the country. All the evidence before the Westmeath Committee was against this special taxation. Its imposition could do no possible good in the repression of crime, and it led many loyal men to view the Government with disaffection.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ In page 3, line 33, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "nothing herein contained shall have the effect of continuing the seventh and eighth sections of the Act passed in the eleventh year of the reign of Her Majesty, entitled 'An Act for the better prevention of Crime and Outrage in certain parts of Ireland until the first day of December one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, and the end of the then next Session of Parliament;' but from and after the passing of this Act the said sections shall be and the same are hereby repealed."—(Mr. Butt.)
1903§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. There was not an argument in favour of fining districts, in order to compensate persons aggrieved or injured through agrarian crime, which did not apply with still greater force to a local tax for the maintenance of special police stations in districts notorious for crime. The ordinary Constabulary Force was paid out of the ordinary Revenue of the United Kingdom; and, therefore, when the conduct of the inhabitants of any particular district rendered it necessary that a special and additional police force should be located amongst them, it was but fair and proper they should bear the expense of it. In 1874, there had been only three instances in which it had been necessary to call the Act into operation, and he believed that the whole of the cost did not exceed £184. He trusted the Committee would not be troubled to divide upon the Amendment.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAurged the unanimity of the evidence before the Westmeath Committee against the police tax. That given by Mr. Rocheford Boyd, Mr. Talbot, and other stipendiary magistrates went to show that the provisions which it was the object of the Amendment to repeal operated with harshness upon the class of small farmers, and alienated them from any sympathy with the Government in the maintenance of law and order. The hon. Baronet read extracts from Mr. Boyd's evidence, complaining of the operation of the law even as it then stood in respect to fines on the inhabitants of certain districts, also a letter addressed to himself (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) by the late J. E. Studdert, resident magistrate, then stationed at Moate, in the County of Westmeath, in which the writer said he believed—
If the police were kept active, 80 per cent of the crime complained of could be put down, and if the people of the country were fairly treated the remaining' 20 per cent would soon cease.In the great majority of cases, murders in a certain district were not committed by the persons resident in that district, and thus the peaceful inhabitants in which a murder was committed had to smart for outrages perpetrated by a stranger. Every extra constable cost the country £37 per annum, and that was a great tax upon the well-disposed.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGalso supported the Amendment, and expressed the belief that the great majority of the magistrates in Ireland would be in favour of the repeal of those Acts. The magistrates who gave evidence before the Westmeath Committee were unanimous in desiring their repeal.
§ MR. MOOREalso supported the Amendment, and believed that the real reason why men were recently found to be short in Tipperary was in consequence of their not receiving sufficient wages.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not support the Amendment. He had full reason to believe that this power would be exercised with great care, and he was not able to satisfy himself that it would be desirable to relax precautions against agrarian crime. He believed there might be cases of hardship in this particular mode of meeting outrages; but he must admit the justice of the general principles of putting on a district some of the expense of providing against these special crimes, and rough as the remedy might be, he thought it was a fair one. Unfortunately, there were districts in Ireland in which public opinion was not so strongly exerted to put down crime as could be wished, and the cost of maintaining the extra police force was not unlikely to have a beneficial effect. Of course the districts objected; but he could not accept the objections of Members who represented these districts as conclusive.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, that was really a "vengeance tax," and although the peasantry might have no sympathy with the murders committed in the neighbourhood, yet they were made to pay. The mode of its operation was exactly as if one of the Prussian commanders in France had a complaint to make against a particular district, and quartered a division upon the inhabitants in order to requisition the district; for the Lord Lieutenant might send down one of his battalions to punish a certain district, and eventually leave the people not a bed to sleep upon, and thus drive them from their farms and consign them to pauperism and the workhouse, or compel them to emigrate. It was more effective than any other mode for clearing off the small peasant occupiers of land, and he asked any landlord in the house, whether he believed that the position of the Irish peasantry was such that they could 1905 afford to pay increased taxes for the maintenance of a police force without letting their rents fall into arrears? And if they fell into arrears with their rent, then their landlords, who were not worse than landlords in any other part of Great Britain, distrained, and they were turned out of their holdings. The unfortunate people were too poor to be able to pay the 6s. 3d. in the pound for the quarter, and had to beg from door to door to get the means of paying the "vengeance money." They went to the police officer, who treated them very kindly, but said he had no power to give them the further time which they asked for. They had to pawn their goods. A Protestant gentleman once told, him he had seen such scenes. The people brought their little bits of furniture to the cross roads, and the wretched spectacle was presented of these poor people selling their bedding at prices varying from 3½d. to 3s. 6d., and thus producing a sum of no use to the Government, while it loft many poor children without any bed but one of heath, plucked for them from the hillside. As an instance of its oppressive character, in the case of the murder of Mr. Bradshaw, in Tipperary, an extra police force had been stationed in the district; and yet the inquest disclosed that the murder arose from domestic circumstances which had never been probed. The peasantry had to pay a police-tax more than equal in amount to their year's rental. Their rents accordingly fell into arrear, their landlords distrained upon them, and they lost the chance of availing themselves of the compensation clauses of the Tenant Eight Act. Again, a Mr. Hunter was shot in Mayo, but not by the peasantry. An iron police barrack was, however, brought down from Dublin, and a police force was quartered on the district. There were 60 families in the district, who were asked to pay 25s. in the pound. They were too poor to pay, and they were obliged to sell everything they had. If English gentlemen could only realize the scenes which took place, and the wretchedness which followed them, they would hesitate before they imposed such legislation. He protested against it, and said, as the police were in reality a military force, they ought to be treated as such, and be paid for in the usual way.
§ MR. CLIVEsaid, he could not support the Amendment, for if there was one 1906 clause in the Bill more valuable than another, it was the one in question. He thought there had been some exaggeration in the speech just delivered. A more harmless man than Mr. Hunter never existed, and he oppressed nobody, yet he was murdered. In the following year a farmer was shot at within two miles of his (Mr. Olive's) door, the ball passing through his clothes, and that was done because he had befriended the widow of Mr. Hunter. In the neighbourhood was a very troublesome population, but as soon as the extra police force was stationed in the district they became very quiet and orderly.
THE O'CONOR DONobserved, that those cases rather furnished an argument against the tax. The tax in Mr. Hunter's case was enormous, but from his known inoffensive character, and from his general popularity, the inevitable conclusion was that his death was the consequence of a domestic quarrel. There was another case in the same county in which the claim to compensation was resisted on the ground that the murder was committed by a member of the family of the' murdered man. In the case of Mr. Hunter, there being no motive for the crime on the part of neighbours, that ought certainly to be an argument against the imposition of a fine so tremendous as was then levied, and as the imposition of this fine led to the bad treatment of the widow, Mrs. Hunter, he maintained that the law had directly led to the commission of crime instead of having repressed it. The subject was very fully gone into before the Westmeath Committee in 1871. A large number of witnesses were examined by it, who knew the country well, and they declared that this provision would have a most injurious effect. Even landlords, who were strongly and urgently in favour of all other means of coercion, were opposed to a resort to this one; and some who avowed that at one time they thought it would be useful, having seen it in operation, declared before the Committee that its operation had been the very contrary of what the Government expected it would be.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 282: Majority 197.
1907MR. SULLIVANmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 33, at end, add—
Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed or taken to continue the tenth section of the Act passed in the eleventh year of the reign of Her Majesty, entitled 'An Act for the hotter Prevention of Crime and Outrage in certain Parts of Ireland until the first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament,' and from and after the passing of this Act the said section shall be and the same is hereby repealed.The hon. Member, referring to the Answer given a few nights ago "by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reply to his Question as to what the Government intended doing with regard to American gentlemen who were expected in Ireland to shoot in a rifle competition, declared that they were going to exercise the dispensing power which dethroned James II. There was no use blinking the question. Unless the Government repealed the section in question it would be in the power not only of the police, but of any civilian, to walk up to any of those American gentlemen, and on his failing to produce the shooting licence from Dublin Castle have him removed to gaol. The right hon. Gentlemen would not like that 30 American gentlemen should go back to their country, and say "Talk of the British Constitution, why when we got under it our rifles were taken from us, because we had not a police ticket of leave for shooting." The right hon. Gentleman said that those gentlemen would not be interfered with more than English gentlemen who went to Ireland for sporting purposes; but if those gentlemen were not interfered with, by virtue of any power conferred by statute, the Government were exercising the very same power as drove James II. from his Throne. It was not the case, however, that English gentlemen were left unmolested by the police in Ireland as regarded shooting. On the contrary, he had letters from English gentlemen complaining of their treatment by the police. One gentleman he would mention, who had rented the shooting of rabbits at a warren near Cork, could not produce his ticket-of-leave when called upon, and was bluntly told that unless he ceased firing until he got his ticket-of-leave, his next bedroom would be a cell. He could mention one or two other cases of the kind, but would conclude by moving his Amendment.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not know why the hon. Member was so anxious about American riflemen, who were not coming to Ireland at his invitation, and who were not going to be entertained by him. He had been informed, however, by those who had invited these gentlemen, that the same arrangements which had been made on previous occasions in cases of this kind, would be made to prevent the riflemen from coming into collision with the law. The section which the hon. Member proposed to repeal only provided that persons unlawfully carrying arms should be apprehended, and that magistrates should have the power to order a search for arms. It would be evident that it would be impossible to carry out a law restrictive of the use of arms without some such provision; and, looking at the majorities by which the Committee had affirmed the restriction on the possession of arms, he hoped the matter would not longer be contested.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that, unfortunately, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the riflemen not having been invited by the hon. Member for Louth was perfectly correct. They were not coming at the request of a Representative of the Irish people—he might say at the request of Ireland.
§ MR. RONAYNEasked, if it was illegal to carry arms, why were people allowed to get over the illegality by this hocus-pocus work? There was evidently some secret communication between the officials of the Castle and the police, by which persons of one class were permitted to commit illegal acts with impunity, for which those of another class were severely punished, and it was this that the people of Ireland objected to. The hon. Member instanced several cases in which gentlemen who had been arrested with arms illegally in their possession had been saved from the necessity of attending at quarter sessions by the interference of friendly magistrates or officials in direct variance with the law.
§ MR. BIGGARtrusted the Government would accede to the Amendment.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, the Committee should insist upon having a statement from the Government on this very important subject. Let him bring out from his secret desk ["Oh, oh!"]—yes, from his secret desk—let him produce some documents showing where he obtained 1909 this power to excuse certain persons from the penalties of carrying arms. Hon. Members could not find the power in any of the volumes before them—in neither the common nor the statutory law. Where, he asked, did the Chief Secretary get his power to deal as he proposed with these American riflemen? In a constitutional way he said the right hon. Gentleman must produce it to the Committee if it were in existence. With regard to the taunt which had been directed to him (Mr. Sullivan) as to his not having invited the American riflemen, he would make this offer to the right hon. Gentlemen—he would undertake to bring over from America battalion after battalion of riflemen, and let it be seen who would first cry, "Hold! enough!"
§ MR. E. E. PLUNKETT, as one of the Irish Eight, said, he was certain that when their American guests came over to Ireland, they would not be inconvenienced in any way by the Act in question. If he thought they would be inconvenienced he should not support the Government. The grievance of the hon. Member for Louth was a sentimental one.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHwas reminded of the saying about a storm in a tea-cup by the denunciations of the hon. Member for Louth. The hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that there was some secret and awful power vested by law in the Government which nobody knew of but the present Chief Secretary, and which was never applied before.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he did not imagine anything of the kind, but only said that the right hon. Baronet had foreshadowed it by saying he knew how to arrange matters.
§ SIRMICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would explain the simple state of the case to the hon. Gentleman. He was informed by the Secretary of the Irish Rifle Association, that it was the practice to apply to the licensing authority some days before the match came off for licences for the gentlemen they had invited to compete in shooting. These licences were, of course, granted, and nothing took place which could wound the national susceptibilities of any visitor.
§ MR. RONAYNEwished to know whether the same privilege would be extended to the riflemen whom he and his friends might invite?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the hon. Member for Cork had repeatedly told them that he would not submit to the degradation of asking for a licence for himself; and it could therefore hardly be supposed that he would ask for licences for his friends or wish that they should degrade themselves by asking on their own behalf.
§ MR. RONAYNEsaid, neither would he for himself. He had deprived himself of considerable source of pleasure as a sportsman for some years rather than go through the indignity of asking a policeman for permission to carry a gun.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. RONAYNEmoved, in page 3, line 33, at end, to add—
From and after the passing of this Act none of the provisions of the Act of the eleventh year of the reign of Her Majesty which were continued by 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1856,'land are continued by this Act, which relate to the having or carrying arms, or any penalties for same, shall extend to any arms or other things mentioned therein except to guns, pistols, and other firearms, and all such provisions, so far as same are continued by this Act, shall be read as if guns, pistols, and other firearms, and no other arms or weapons, had been iucluded or mentioned therein.The meaning of the clause would be understood by the definition of the word "arms." The Bill, as it stood, was intended by the Government to put down agrarian crime. Well, as agrarian outrages had never been committed by means of the cutlass, the sword, the pike, or the bayonet, surely these need not be retained in the provisions. A great deal of annoyance had been caused to people through their houses having been searched, and old weapons, such as swords belonging to ancestors being taken away. Under the Bill as it stood, even the possession of foils and stage rapiers was illegal—so that the Bill would deprive the Irish people of the pleasure of acting Shakespeare's plays, for what would Hamlet be without a sword? Then cannon were in-eluded in the Bill. Well, he had never heard of a landlord having been shot with a cannon. Yet cannon were included in an Act—the pretence of which was the suppression of agrarian outrage in Ireland. He did not think he was asking anything unreasonable in requesting that his Amendment be accepted.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 33, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "From and after the passing of this Act none of the provisions of the Act of the eleventh year of the reign of Her Majesty which were continued by The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1856,' and are continued by this Act, which relate to the having or carrying of arms, or any penalties for same, shall extend to any arms or other things mentioned therein, except to guns, pistols, and other firearms, and all such provisions, so far as same are continued by this Act, shall be read as if guns, pistols, and other firearms, and no other arms or weapons had been included or mentioned therein."—(Mr. Ronayne.)
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHobserved that the Amendment would exclude revolvers, swords, cutlasses, pikes, and bayonets from the term "arms." Everybody knew that a pike was not an unknown weapon in Ireland, and instances had come before him of party processions in which imitation pikes had been carried; and he had no doubt real pikes would have been carried but for this prohibition. It was needless to say that he could not agree to the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 270: Majority 203.
THE O'CONOR DON, in formally moving the omission of the words giving the Grand Jury power to assess damages upon a district where an outrage had occurred, said, he only did so to put himself in Order. It was admitted by the Prime Minister that there ought to be no fine where the criminal was given up, or where no reasonable ground existed for supposing that evidence which might lead to a conviction was kept back. He had on former occasions strongly objected to the whole system of fining innocent individuals under any circumstances. His objections had not been met. He would not then repeat his arguments; but he wished to know from the Chief Secretary whether he was prepared to make any concession in the direction indicated on a previous evening?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the question had been fully discussed already, and he hoped it was not about to be re-opened. He had hoped that the hon. Member would himself have proposed an Amendment to give effect to his views, and was rather surprised that he had not done so. He did not, upon 1912 consideration, think that it would do to exempt from payment a district in which some person had been convicted of the crime, though it might be hard to punish a district when it was shown that the inhabitants had done their best to deliver the culprit up to justice. However, he was willing, at a later stage of the Bill, to introduce an Amendment to the existing law to the following effect:—
Provided that no such presentment be made or affirmed unless in the opinion of the grand jury there is reason to believe that material evidence is withheld by any person resident within the districts on which the presentment is to be levied.Though he did not pledge himself to the exact words, that was the Amendment which he was prepared to propose, and he hoped it would be accepted as a settlement of the difficulty. He wished it to be understood that while the Government would maintain the principles of the Bill intact, they desired to render it as little oppressive as possible.
THE O'CONOR DONthought that the Amendment proposed would be satisfactory. The right hon. Baronet expressed surprise that he (the O'Conor Don) had not put Amendments on the Paper similar in spirit to that which he had himself proposed; but he had such an objection to this legislation in principle that he did not think that he would be justified in making any attempt to patch it up. He, however, hoped that his hon. Friends would withdraw their Amendments, and accept the proposition shadowed forth by the right hon. Baronet.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he could not agree that this would be a very great improvement, for Grand Juries would generally be of the opinion referred to in the Amendment. What would be a great improvement would be this—that the ratepayers should have the right to traverse the presentment, and try the question before a Judge and jury, as was the practice under the old law, which gave compensation for malicious injuries.
§ MR. BIGGARconcurred in the objection to the proposed Amendment, and thought that instead of the term "any person," it should be "any ratepayer."
§ CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he would not again discuss the question whether compensation should be paid to the relations of a murdered man. That question had been already settled by the Committee. 1913 He would only say that if Ireland would not be the pleasantest place in the world to be murdered in it would be so far as the next of kin of the victim were considered, seeing that they were to receive compensation in money in consequence of the commission of the crime. He begged to move as an Amendment in page 3, line 38, after "presentment," to insert—
That the money shall be levied off a poor law union or off an electoral district of a poor law union, or of several districts of a poor law union, and through the collecting machinery of a poor law union, and in the same proportion between the proprietor and the occupier as that in which the poor rates are now collected, and also.The rates in Ireland were of two different kinds—the poor rates which were paid equally by the occupiers and the landlords, and the county cess which was paid entirely by the tenants. The theory of the county cess, as settled by this House in 1870, was that the rate should be paid equally in cases of new contracts, but the landlords were in the habit of contracting themselves out of this rate altogether. His contention was, that half of the money presented as compensation should be paid by the landlords and half by the tenants, and this would practically be the case if it was paid out of the poor rates. If they did not adopt the Amendment, they would be declining to carry out a principle which had been adopted in the case of the Explosive Substances Bill and other measures.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the principle brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member in his Amendment was that the tax should be paid partly by the occupiers and partly by the owners of property, instead of by the occupiers only as at present. He did not propose at present to go into the question of local taxation, nor would he attempt to deal with the question of Grand Jury compensation; but he would address himself to the reason why this should be an occupier's and not an owner's tax. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had accused the Government of going against the principle of existing legislation, but he had to remind him that the 69th section of the Irish Land Act specially provided that charges of this description—for murder or malicious injury—to be levied under the Peace Preservation Act, should not be divided between owner and occupier. The occupier of land, as a rule, would be 1914 a resident in the district, whereas the owner would, very likely, be non-resident, and the result of this was that by taxing the occupiers the tax fell on those who would in all probability possess some knowledge of the criminals who had disturbed the peace of the district, whereas if the owners were equally taxed, those who knew nothing whatever of the matter would have to bear the burden equally with those possessing a guilty knowledge.
THE O'CONOR DONregretted that he could not support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. To do so would be to admit the principle that the person who had suffered an injury arising out of some agrarian cause, was justly entitled to receive a money payment in respect of it, though not entitled to receive such compensation if the injury arose from some other cause. He could never see the justice of this principle, and could assent to no Amendment which embodied it. The only principle on which the compensation rate could be at all justified was, that it would fall, to a certain extent, if not on the perpetrators, at least, on the aiders and abettors in the commission of the crime. He did not mean to say that it was his opinion that even this was a just principle, or that it would really work out as anticipated; but to place any portion of the fine or rate on the proprietors, against whom not the slightest suspicion of complicity with the crime could be raised, seemed to him to embody a most dangerous principle, which might lead to making the enactment permanent.
§ MR. PEASEsaid, he perfectly agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said about the tax; the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman had moved, or was going to move, materially altered the position of the case. The case of the Explosive Substances Bill, to which the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Nolan) had referred, was not at all in point. If the Grand Jury were satisfied that occupiers were harbouring criminals, or not doing their best to bring offenders to justice, then alone would the tax be levied, and it ought to be borne by the occupiers. Owners being occupiers would have the tax to pay.
MR. SULLIVANregretted this policy on the part of the Government, and denounced it as a policy for encouraging 1915 the absenteeism of landlords at the expense of those who stayed at home and did their duty. In the counties of Car-low and Wicklow, and elsewhere, where the local gentry remained at home and discharged their duties faithfully, we did not hear of any outbreak of agrarian crime; it was where the landlords were absentees that the people were disaffected, and throwing the entire burden of exceptional taxes upon residents was merely offering a premium for absenteeism.
§ MR. PARNELLregarded the argument as an unfortunate one that because a landlord was non-resident he should be released from the responsibilities of his position. As a resident Irish landlord, he feared that such a clause as now proposed, which embodied the principle of taxation without representation, would add to the feeling in Ireland that this was a tyrannical Bill.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANmoved, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Motion agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.