SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 March 1875)

§ MR. P. J. SMYTH
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, in the Session of 1871, in answer to a Question put by him to the Irish Solicitor General, Mr. Dowse said with reference to the Act which this Bill proposed to repeal, that there was no statute of a similar kind in England, and that it was still in force in Ireland. In consequence of that answer, he introduced in the Session of 1872 a Bill similar to the one then before the House. He was opposed by the Government of that day, as he was told he would be opposed by the Government of the present; but as he was persuaded his request was a most reasonable one, he trusted the House would lend him its attention for a few minutes. The title of the Act which it was the object of this Bill to repeal, was calculated seriously to mislead. It was not an Act to prevent unlawful assemblies, but to make unlawful assemblies, which without it would be perfectly lawful. It was introduced in the Irish Parliament by Lord Clare, in the year 1793, the pretence being a rumoured intention of the Catholics to hold a Convention in Athlone. It enacted— That all assemblies or other bodies of persons elected or otherwise constituted or appointed are unlawful assemblies, and all persons taking part therein are guilty of high misdemeanour. An Act of so extraordinary and unconstitutional a character could not fail to meet with vehement opposition in the Irish Parliament. Mr. Grattan said its object was not the peace of the country, but reflection on great bodies, and gratification of spleen at the expense of the Constitution, by voting false doctrine into law. His objection to the Bill was, that it was a trick, making a supposed national Convention in Athlone in 1793 a pretext for preventing delegation for ever. Lord Clare, at all events, had his pretext in 1793. He was curious to 1958 know on what pretext the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would attempt to justify, in 1875, the prevention of delegation for ever, and the voting of false doctrine into law. Hon. Members would see, by referring to the Act, that it related solely to the mode of convening or holding a public meeting, and not in the slightest degree to the object for which a meeting might be convened. A meeting might be convened for the worst imaginable object, and if it had not a representative character, it might, so far as this Act was concerned, proceed without interruption. On the other hand, if a meeting be convened for the most laudable object in the world, and if it had a representative character, the police were commanded to disperse it by force, and those taking part in it as representatives were liable to the penalties of high misdemeanour. That was the law of public meeting in Ireland in this, the seventy-fifth year of the Legislative Union. He might be told the Act was not enforced since O'Connell's time. But why, if violated, had it not been enforced? Why the opposition to this Bill? Let the truth be proclaimed; the motive be frankly avowed. It was felt that this Act was a potent weapon in the hands of Government, and so it was held in reserve, bright and polished, for some great occasion. Such was the policy; but it was an unconstitutional policy, and as unstatesmanlike as it was unjust. It was a policy that condemned the Irish people to live on sufferance in their own land, and hold the plainest of constitutional rights—the right of public meeting—at the caprice of the Law Officers of the day. They have ostensibly, The letters Cadmus gave, but they are told in effect, He meant them for a slave! A conclusive proof of the mischievous vitality of the Act, and at the same time an overwhelming condemnation of it, would be found in the Act disestablishing the Irish Church. A special clause in the Irish Church Act, placed the Convention Act in abeyance, in order to enable the Protestants of Ireland to meet by delegation for the purposes of organizing their Church. A former Attorney General for Ireland (now Mr. Justice Barry), explaining that clause, said— 1959 By a peculiar law of old standing in that country, and framed for a particular purpose, no person or body could meet by delegation."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 1019.] Thus, before a section of the Irish community could discharge one of the most solemn duties ever imposed upon men, Parliament was obliged to remove the barrier interposed by this Act of old standing, framed for a particular purpose. It was the Act thus emphatically condemned, this peculiar Act of old standing, framed for a particular purpose in 1793, put aside for a particular purpose in 1869, and maintained for some very particular purpose from the Union to the present day, that he then asked the House totally to abrogate, and by so doing assimilate the law of Ireland, with reference to public meetings, to that of England. There was nothing which so impressed the observer of public events in England during the last half century, as the ease and quietness with which vast constitutional changes, amounting to revolutions, had been effected. A convention was held in Manchester or Birmingham, or a series of delegate meetings in London, and, as if by magic, religious liberty was established, and a cherished monopoly went down, and the portals of Parliament were widened, till the Commons' House became the expression of the peoples' will. The magician was not their Canning or their Brougham, their Cobden or their Peel, but that principle of representation that underlay the Constitution, and, like light itself, permeated the whole framework of English society. Give to Ireland the benefit of that saving principle—give her the Constitution. Repeal the Convention Act, or Repeal the Union.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)
said, he must oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. The Motion had been before the House on several occasions, and had been resisted by the Representatives of the Irish Government of both political parties. The speech of the hon. Member tended to create a misapprehension as to the character of the measure. The Convention Act did not in any degree interfere with the right of public meeting 1960 in Ireland, nor did it interfere with the right of petitioning. That Act provided that meetings of a representative character, or in the nature of a delegated assembly, drawn together for the purpose of procuring a change in matters established by law in Church and State, should not be allowed. It would not be denied, he apprehended, that were the Act repealed a convention would be immediately called together in Ireland. Would not such an institution necessarily act as a rival to the House of Commons, and keep alive and exasperate those unhappy dissensions that had already existed there? Could any one doubt that such meetings would tend to create discontent and dissatisfaction in Ireland, and lead to most unhappy results? But this Bill would make such meetings legal, and would therefore enhance the danger. The Constitution gave the same liberty for lawful meetings in Ireland and in England. At present the Irish people were not deprived of any right of meeting in order to petition Parliament, or for any other legitimate purpose. When this proposal was made in 1872 it was opposed by the late Prime Minister, who said— We must admit, with deep regret, that we have not reached the time when we could safely and prudently venture to apply the entire identity of political legislation to Ireland, which I believe every man in this House desires."—[3 Hansard, ccxi. 166.] The Bill would confer on the Irish people a dangerous gift; it would enable them to set up a mock Parliament and a mimic House of Commons, and he would therefore give it his decided opposition.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
said, there had been representative meetings not long ago in Dublin of the very character described, and they were not interfered with. He should support the second reading.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, the custom had been to have two weights and two measures for England and Ireland. The system of taxation, as had been shown a few nights ago, was in Ireland most oppressive and double in amount. The Convention Act was not put in motion against the friends of the Government. A few days ago a meeting of medical men was allowed to be held at the Limerick Junction, in direct contravention of the Convention Act; but those who held the meeting were not disturbed, 1961 because it consisted of friends of the Government. Could any Minister dare to propose a Convention Act for England? The Irish Convention Act was the cause of disturbances. If the Irish met in thousands they were charged with endeavouringto over awe the Government, and if they met, as they did lately at the Rotunda, in Dublin, then they were despised on account of the paucity of their numbers. Whether their meetings consisted of few or many, the result was the same; their voice was not heard. To public opinion out-of-doors he would fearlessly leave it to decide whether such oppression should be allowed any longer to continue.