§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 3 (Continuance of Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870, subject to amendments and modification).
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 38, after the word "presentment," to insert the words "that the money shall be levied off a poor law union, or off an electoral district of a poor law union, or off several districts of a poor law union, and through the collecting machinery of the 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."—(Captain Nolan.)
§ MR. FAYsupported the Amendment. It deserved the especial support of the Committee, because the farmers of Ireland were getting alarmed that all taxation should be placed upon them, and assessed and administered by persons who had no sympathy with them or paid any portion of the amount to be levied. As a rule, landlords were good and considerate; but there were among them men—not many in number, certainly—who were disposed to act harshly, and to dispossess a tenant of his farm, if the legal conditions admitted of it. To take a farm from a farmer was as if they should take away from a medical man in good practice the diploma by which he carried on his profession, leaving him no redress. A certain amount of anger must be supposed to remain in the breast of a man so injured, and while the tenant-farmers of Ireland did not sympathize with murder, they did sympathize with a man so wronged. He objected to the tax being levied as an ordinary police tax. He looked upon it as blood money, and said if the principle were to be recognized, they might next be asked to go back to the thumb-screw and other methods of torture. Without attempting to excuse for one moment the crimes which these Acts were passed to prevent, he thought that the Coercion Acts pushed the patience of the public to its extreme limit, and he believed that the large majority of the landlords of the country were against the Bill now before the House.
MR. P. MARTINsaid, that he also should support the Amendment, and he should do so because he considered it most unjust that the burden of this tax should be borne by the tenant-farmer. Why should the tenant-farmer be called upon to pay exclusively a tax which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had well described as "vengeance money?" Surely the absentee farmer who lived abroad and neglected his duty ought to be made to bear his part in this taxation, at least, in an equal proportion with the tenant-farmer who remained upon the spot and attended to them. If it was confined simply to tenants, then, in the words of the hon. Member for Louth, the Government was simply offering a premium to absenteeism. He hoped that on this subject the House would not come to a hasty vote, but assess equally between the occupiers and the landlords.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had listened attentively to the arguments that had been adduced on both sides of this question, and had been led by them to the conclusion that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) ought to be accepted. In his opinion, a tax levied for the purpose of carrying out a Bill of a character similar to this measure should certainly be thrown, not upon one class of the community, but upon all classes alike; and there was a strong additional reason for this, for he was old-fashioned enough to cherish the principle that taxation and representation should go together. If this Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member were not carried, the House would be permitting a tax to be imposed by one class of the community, and to be borne by another class. That, he thought, was a principle which ought not to be lightly sanctioned by the House. He would, however, leave the consideration of the subject with regard to fiscal regulations, and come to the effect which the measure might have in Ireland; and when he came to deal with that part of the subject, the question seemed to him to assume altogether a new significance and importance. He could not, he was bound to say, feel that any greater insult could be offered to him, if he were a tenant-farmer, or the occupier of a house in Ireland, that when an outrage had been committed he, and persons of his class, should be charged exclusively in raising the compensation, and that the tax should be borne by him exclusively because he was an occupier. He should consider it an insult that he should be made exclusively responsible for those outrages. It seemed to him an unmerited and unnecessary insult to offer to that class; for, so far as he had been able to ascertain, there were thousands of tenant-farmers in Ireland who regarded those outrages with as much abhorence as any hon. Member of that House, and who would be certain to inquire indignantly—"Why should you saddle us alone for these outrages in which we have no participation, and which we abhor as much as you do?" But, were he in any doubt as to how his vote should be given upon the question under discussion, that doubt would be removed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland at the last sitting. The chief argument 1966 employed by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech against the proposal was this—"Oh! we cannot accept this Amendment, because it might have the effect of making a charge upon absentee landlords." But, if anyone had taken the trouble to read the history of Ireland, he must have come to this conclusion—that it would be no great injury to impose a small pecuniary charge on absentee Irish landlords, for he could not but think that if it had not been for those absentee landlords—if, in Ireland, it had been recognized as in England, that property carried with it duties as well as rights—the state of Ireland would have been very different from what it was, and they would not be having night after night to be considering Coercion Bills for that country. Since, therefore, that was the solitary argument, so far as the Government were concerned, against the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, certainly, rather than thinking that that argument was one of the highest wisdom for the purpose for which it was advanced, it seemed to him that if it had any pertinence at all, its effect was wholly in its favour. He hoped that the few remarks he had made might serve to show that on fiscal grounds the Amendment ought to be accepted by the Committee; and certainly, looking at the effect which the provision against which it was directed would have on social relations in Ireland, he could not but feel it to be an Amendment which the Committee would do well to take into its favourable consideration.
§ MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsupported the clause. He thought it very hard that landlords residing out of the country should be called on to bear their share of the cost of detecting the perpetrators of outrages with which they could have no possible sympathy. The fine was inflicted upon a district on the assumption that a large number of the inhabitants of the district had some sympathy with the culprit and the crime; but in the case of the large majority of landlords, as of absentees, for instance, there could be no suspicion that they sympathized with agrarian crimes, or with those that perpetrated them. A further object of the tax was to stimulate the zeal of the inhabitants of a district in detecting criminals; but how could they stimulate the zeal of persons who 1967 were absent from Ireland, and who had no knowledge whatever of those outrages? It was rather hard to say to the landlord that he must live in Ireland and be shot, or be an absentee and be fined. Moreover, the question of putting a tax on absenteeism could not be fairly raised on an Amendment to a Peace Preservation Bill.
§ MR. MACDONALDconcurred in the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member near him (Mr. Fawcett), and hoped the hon. and gallant Mover of the Amendment would press it. He thought that the Bill, in the present state of Ireland, was totally unneeded; and that it treated Ireland in an exceptional manner, and one which would not be submitted to by the people of England or the people of Scotland. With regard to absentee landlords, he thought that if they were not living in Ireland then they ought to be there, and if they were there, then, in his opinion, this Bill would not be necessary. He further thought that many hon. Members on that side of the House showed a want of interest in the Bill. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had some time ago appealed to the natural Leader of the Liberal party in that House. He thought the hon. Member might have better said the artificial Leader, for he (Mr. Macdonald) had noticed with regret that the front Opposition Benches had been empty night after night, during the discussion on the clauses of a Bill dealing with the liberties of an illustrious people.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he was glad to see that the front Opposition Benches had a number of occupants that night, which contrasted with their vacant state at previous sittings when the liberties of Ireland were being dealt with. He asked why the landlords who resided in the district referred to should not pay their portion of the tax. Twenty years ago a tenant took his land, having to pay the ordinary cess, but never contemplating the occurrence of agrarian outrages and his having 2s. or, it might be, 5s. in the pound added to his rent, because of outrages committed by persons having no connection with the district. Could hon. Members opposite say conscientiously that such a law as that ought to be enacted? The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Butler-Johnstone) had spoken of the hardship of resident landlords being shot, or absentees being fined. 1968 It could not be said by hon. Members acquainted with Ireland that the bulk of the farmers resident in the neighbourhood where agrarian crime was committed were not loyal subjects. The landlords ought to pay their portion of this tax, unless the House was prepared to brand the whole population of a district as persons who were disloyal and who participated in crime.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. If the tax were a part of the ordinary expenditure, incurred in carrying out this Act, he would agree that it ought to be paid share and share alike by the owner and occupier; or if this were a permanent Act he should vote for the Amendment. But this was not the case; the tax was justified on the ground that a certain class of occupiers in Ireland had a sympathy with particular descriptions of crimes. Starting from that assumption, and deciding, as they had done, that this tax was to be levied upon this particular ground, it was absurd to argue that it should be extended to the owners as well as occupiers. When they talked about absentee owners, he would remind them that the good landlords who lived in the country, and whose example led to its peace and prosperity were just as much owners as the absentees, and that a tax on the owners of property would just as much affect those who were residents as those who were absentees. Indeed, it seemed to him that this question of absenteeism had nothing to do with the subject. If it were right to tax the owner, it would be equally right to tax the absentee or the resident; but he denied that any justification could be offered for taxing the owner. The point was, were they going to extend this tax to a class with respect to whom it would be absurd to say that they had any sympathy with these crimes, or that they refused to aid in bringing the criminals to justice? If Parliament recognized the principle, he feared the result would be that the tax would become permanent, and he consequently felt himself bound to vote against the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland told the Committee that he intended to propose an Amendment which he (the O'Conor Don) thought was an extremely good one—namely, that the tax should not be imposed, unless there was some proof 1969 that sympathy with the criminal existed, or unless there was some proof that information which would be given was withheld. He considered that to be a very valuable Amendment; but the consequence of adopting the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) would be to do away with its effect, for the moment you adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member, you admitted the principle that the injured party had some inherent right to the compensation, altogether apart from the criminality of the district, and were this principle admitted, he feared it would lead to the permanence of the Act. Therefore, he felt bound to oppose it.
§ LORD ESLINGTONopposed the Amendment. A great deal had been said about absenteeism, with which he had no sympathy whatever. In his opinion it was the duty of landlords to do their best among their tenants. He wished to know whether many of the Irish owners could fairly be supposed to be cognizant of the proceedings of the secret societies in Ireland? So long as they were not aware of them, he thought it would be somewhat unfair to divide the tax as was proposed. Until he was satisfied on this point he should certainly support the Government.
§ MR. RONAYNEthought the observations of the noble Lord showed how unjust it was to mix up the Westmeath Act with measures affecting other parts of Ireland, such, for instance, as the South. He challenged the Government to produce a ease within the memory of any Member of the House of any secret society existing in the South of Ireland. There had never yet been a prosecution for Ribbonism there. With regard to the injustice of not taxing absentees, and taxing resident occupiers, he wished to point out to the Committee the circumstances under which he lived in Queenstown. That town consisted of villa residences and was generally inhabited by merchants and others from Cork, who came down for the summer. The principal part of the town belonged to an absentee lady, who had never been in Ireland in her life, and had never contributed in any way towards the prosperity of the place. Between 50,000 and 60,000 persons passed through Queenstown every year, and if any outrage was committed by one of them, the gentlemen who occupied the villa residences 1970 during the summer months would have to pay the compensation, whilst the lady who owned nearly all Queenstown would pay nothing. He objected to that principle. The tax ought to be imposed on both landlords and tenants, and imposed by the guardians. He supported the Amendment.
§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) admitted that the imposition of the tax was usually in itself an injustice, and he proposed to aggravate one injustice by committing another. One half the Ribbon murders were committed by strangers from a distance utterly unknown to the farmers. The tax was not imposed for the discovery of the murderer, because it was imposed whether the murderer was discovered or not; and it was not imposed as a punishment, because it was imposed equally upon the innocent and the guilty. The charge was a continuation of the Saxon tax, called weregelt, levied upon the property of the hundred to compensate a man who had been injured, or the family of a man who had been killed; and, that being so, it ought to be levied on the possessor of the greater part of the property, and not upon the occupiers only. There ought to be no distinction made between rich and poor, and landlords ought not to escape because they had a greater voice in that House. He should therefore support the Amendment.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, it was impossible for him or any of his Friends to tell the noble Lord (Lord Eslington) whether any landlords belonged to these secret societies. To be able to give any information on the subject, they must belong to these secret organizations; and Members of that House were, therefore, not competent to give the information asked for by the noble Lord. It would be a great mistake to suppose that in these matters a line could be drawn at the possession of property. He wished to ask the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive), why he had not given information with regard to the crime which was committed on his property? The hon. Member had been as silent as any innocent farmer in the district, and for the very same reason—that he knew nothing about it. That innocence would save him from the tax, though it would not save the farmer. If the Committee rejected the Amendment 1971 they would commit one of the worst mistakes that a Legislature could commit, because they, a Legislature of landowners, were about to draw the line of sympathy with crime at their own doors.
§ MR. CLIVEexplained that in the case referred to, he was one of the magistrates before whom the inquiry was conducted. Two persons, one of whom was his agent, were travelling along the road, one of them was fired at. The face of the man who fired was blackened, and as soon as he fired he disappeared among the mountains. Even if he could have been found, the person at whom he shot would not have been able to recognize him. The Committee had already decided upon this matter, and he thought bringing it again under the consideration of the House was merely conducive of delay.
§ MR. COLLINScontended that the tenants, as a class, were equally incapable with the landlords of being associated with crime. He supported the Amendment on the ground that the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) carried conviction with them.
§ MR. CALLAN, who also supported the Amendment, observed that he thoroughly detested the Bill in every form and shape. His principal objection to the clause was the narrow area of taxation, and he did not see why, if the tenant-farmers suffered, the landlords should not suffer also. He repudiated altogether any sympathy on the part of the tenant-farmers with crime. He must again repeat his statement of the other night that the notorious Ribbon leader, Captain Duffy, had been released on a petition signed by the Westmeath magistracy.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 260: Majority 156.
§ MR. R. SMYTHmoved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 10, at end, add—
Provided always, That the whole sum so presented and affirmed shall in no case exceed a rate of one shilling in the pound for one year upon the valuation of the district charged with the same.The hon. Member said, that he had no intention of re-opening the question of compensation for murder, or for personal injuries, as the Committee had already affirmed the principle in the vote upon 1972 the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don); but assuming that the principle was right, very great hardship and even oppression might be incidental to its application. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had very properly pointed out the other night, that there was a double element or object in the assessment under this clause for compensation. In the first place, there was the element of restitution for damage done to a person or a family; and, in the second place, there was the deterrent object on which the right hon. Gentleman laid the main stress. Now, so far as the first consideration was concerned, a sliding scale as to amount might be quite defensible, and they might justly say that it was the right thing to appraise a man's money or value by his rank or position in life. In the case of death or injury on a railway, Judges and juries constantly made this distinction, and he had nothing to say against it. But when they came to the second and main object of the assessment, how did the present or the proposed law work? An under-bailiff or small farmer was murdered, and the Grand Jury presented, say, £100 as compensation to be levied off a certain district. But suppose it was an agent that was murdered, the Grand Jury would present at least £500, perhaps, £1,000, and it was to be levied off the same area, and from the same occupiers. Now, if it was an impression that they wanted to produce by the severity of the impost, clearly they were more anxious to deter the people from murdering persons in high rank, than from murdering those in low rank. When guilt was proved before a Judge, the same punishment was dealt out for slaying a peasant and for slaying a nobleman; but when the guilt was not proved at all, but there was only a suspicion that there was sympathy with the guilty, they proportioned the punishment according to the rank of the victims. He could not imagine any reasonable defence of such a proportion. They had a right to protect the lives of the poor as carefully as they did the lives of the rich. He did not wish to influence popular passion by dwelling on that most objectionable form of class legislation; but if he did not, other people assuredly would. He might be told that the Grand Jury and the Judge would see that no injustice was inflicted. 1973 But he would remind the Committee that their discretion was under the guidance of the Act, for they were directed to assess the amount according to rank. They could not help it. What he proposed was that this compensation might vary, but that the punishment inflicted on individuals should not vary or be determined by the rank or position in life of the person maltreated or murdered. Of course, in one case the area would have to be more extensive than in the other. In that rough-and-ready kind of justice—if it could be called justice—borrowed from barbarous times, every feature of it would not bear to be too nicely examined; but he was anxious that the law should not bear cruelly upon innocent people, and that it should not be so manifestly unfair as to awaken indignation and disgust. The kind of evidence produced before Grand Juries in these cases was very curious. The first question they had to consider was whether the outrage was agrarian, and how was that done? Evidence was tendered that the murdered man had made himself most unpopular; had gone to law with his neighbours, and was generally detested in the district. The Committee would observe that this was necessary, in order to give plausibility to the charge of agrarian combination. In fact, the old generous maxim was totally changed, for here it was de mortuis nil nisi malum. All the quarrelsomeness and supposed tyranny of the deceased was raked up; and so, because the people disliked him, the murder was pronounced agrarian. The police, in the next place, testified that the people of the district showed no regret at the occurrence, and would give no information, either as to the identity or whereabouts of the murderer. Nine-tenths of them probably knew no more about it than any persons living 1,000 miles away; and yet they were to be fined to the very blanket upon their beds, and to the very skin of their teeth, until they were driven to despair and to the Union workhouse. He had heard of two small farmers who had been at the Scotch harvest, and they came home to find themselves assessed at 4s. in the pound for a crime they had no more to do with, either in act or sympathy, than they had with the death of Julius Cæsar. The thing was not right. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) read to the Committee last Monday a letter written 1974 by a highly respected and much esteemed solicitor in Coleraine—a sound Conservative—in which letter the hardships of a case in County Derry were detailed. A small townland has been assessed for the murder of Stephen Church in a sum amounting to nearly 4s. in the pound for 10 years. He believed the Grand Jury of Londonderry to be as just and merciful a body as was to be found in Ireland; but when he found gentlemen whose honour and sense of justice he knew and confided in, making what he called a grievous mistake like that he could not, without remonstrance, assent to the continuance of an oppressive law. If he had mentioned the wrong limit in the Amendment he could compromise it, but he wanted a limit to be imposed. It was a penal question, and he was asking nothing new when he asked that juries and Judges should know how far they went in awarding punishment. He now moved the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 10, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That the whole sum so presented and affirmed shall in no case exceed a rate of one shilling in the pound for one year upon the valuation of the district charged with the same."—(Mr. Richard Smyth.)
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not know for what reason the hon. Gentleman had suggested 1s. in the pound as the extreme limit. If it were the limit, many cases might arise where the tax would fail of its purpose, as so small a rate in the pound would hardly be felt as a fine, and the amount raised on a district of low valuation or limited area would be so small as to 'afford but little compensation to the persons injured. It would be far better to adhere to the principle adopted by the late Government when they made the proposal in the Bill of 1870. The late Government left the matter in the hands of the Grand Jury subject to the sanction of the Judge. The Bill now before the Committee made the same proposal, but care was taken that both the Grand Jury and the Judge should have all the circumstances of the case before them. Besides, the Judge would also have before him under the Bill the valuation of the district, the number of instalments by which the amount assessed would have to be levied, the amount of rate necessary, and other important particulars. If, in addition, it were provided 1975 that the Grand Jury should be satisfied that material evidence was being withheld, he thought the matter would be placed on a proper footing. He thought it better that the matter should, with these safeguards, be settled by the local authorities, than that they should now adopt any off-hand proposals for dealing with the question.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 269: Majority 182.
§ MR. FAYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 10, to insert after "appeals"—
Provided always, That, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, there shall be such right of traverse of any such presentment as is given in respect of malicious injuries in the Act of 6 and 7 William IV., chapter 116.He contended that they would brand the juries of Ireland with complicity with criminal outrages if they did not admit that those juries were willing to allow compensation to the relatives of those who had suffered from such outrages. Proceedings in Grand Jury rooms in reference to these matters were not always conducted in a very correct manner, and he thought that the ratepayers should have the right to appeal to a common jury in matters wherein they felt aggrieved and that a wrong decision had been arrived at.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 10, after the word "appeals," to insert the words "Provided always, That, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, there shall be such right of traverse of any such presentment as is given in respect of malicious injuries under the Act of the sixth and seventh of William the Fourth, chapter one hundred and sixteen."—(Mr. Fay.)
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to change the existing tribunal, which had been existing and working ever since the year 1870. It had been appointed by the Peace Preservation Act of 1870 to work out this compensation system. Indeed, he could not imagine a more satisfactory tribunal than the present one, as it consisted of the gentry and those who had the largest interest in the county in every way. All the witnesses were examined before it, and every one of them had an opportunity of stating what he desired in the case; and any ratepayer who had an interest in the matter could, if dissatisfied, take it—before whom? Not 1976 before a petty jury, but before one of Her Majesty's Judges, who listened to all on each side, and, after he had heard all on the one side and the other, affirmed or set aside the decision of the Grand Jury. Now, that was a tribunal that had been in operation for the last five years, and which had, to his (Mr. Gibson's) knowledge, worked well. Yet, while the Judges had power to select a wider area for the incidence of taxation—a power exercised by Baron Dease—once an ornament to this House—it was now sought by the hon. Member to set that tribunal aside and adopt another. Let it also be remembered that it was now asked to pass the present Bill for five years only, and that the existing tribunal, which it was sought by the Bill to continue, had been in operation five years. He hoped the Committee would decide in favour of the appeal to Her Majesty's Judges and against the Amendment of the hon. Member.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the House asserted that the decisions of Her Majesty's Judges had given great satisfaction; but he (Mr. Biggar) believed the contrary, and he considered the adoption of power of appeal to a common jury desirable.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 221: Majority 160.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANmoved, as an Amendment, in page 4, at end of clause, to add—
And he may also determine that such sum shall be levied from the poor rates instead of from the county cess, and award accordingly.The Government could not call this a revolutionary Amendment, as it merely permitted the Judge to levy half the burden on the landlord and half on the occupier, instead of placing the whole rate on the occupier. The occupiers of the land might not know anything of the injury for which the levy was made, and the question was simply one of compensation. He did not think the proposal was very revolutionary. The Judges might, in certain cases, be of opinion that there had been remissness on the part of the magistrates, and that they should bear a part of the compensation. In such cases the charge ought most certainly to be divided between the landlord and the occupier.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Committee having already-decided that the monies necessary to provide compensation should be levied upon the county cess, he could not accept a proposal which would put it within the power of the Judges to override the decision of Parliament.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYcontended that there was nothing in the decision referred to by the Chief Secretary to prevent the Committee acceding to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway. Nothing could be more unjust than to charge the tenantry of a district with the compensasation for an outrage in which they manifestly had no part.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING, though he thought his hon. and gallant Friend had the best of the argument, advised the withdrawal of the Amendment, on the ground that they could not at that period of the evening hope to obtain a better division than had already taken place.
§ MR. BIGGARtrusted the hon. and gallant Gentleman would press his Motion.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he had now to move an Amendment, which was essentially different from that of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. The Amendment was this—that, inasmuch as under the 138th section of the Grand Juries Act the Judges had had the power, in the traverse of a presentment, to call a jury to their aid, they should also have the power of calling a jury to assist them, not for the purpose of saying that a malicious outrage was not an agrarian crime, or that there should be no assessment at all, but simply to determine what should be the area over which the taxation should extend, and also to vary the amount of the award. He proposed that the jurors should not be fewer in number than five nor greater than nine. It would be much better that any presentment for agrarian crime should be made over the whole county instead of upon so limited an area.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, this was decidedly a less objectionable 1978 Amendment than the one that had recently been rejected. Parliament, however, had deliberately adopted the opposite procedure, and, as it had worked well and the principle had just been re-affirmed by the Committee, he would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment to a division.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, for the sake of consistency, must join in the appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, That the clause, as amended, be agreed to?
THE O'CONOR DONasked when the Chief Secretary for Ireland would make the promised additions to the clause?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought they would be most conveniently made on the Report.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it was his duty to oppose the clause, as it was wholly incomprehensible. The Amendments to the clause were numerous, and it was desirable that the Committee should have them in a comprehensive form before the clause was agreed to. No one seemed to understand the clause. Indeed, he would undertake to say that there not half-a-dozen Members who were clearly acquainted with its meaning.
§ MR. BUTTdesired to know if he rightly understood the change which had been made in reference to the search for arms? The original Act authorized the issue of general warrants, and since 1870, practically, the law had been to give the police the power to make domiciliary visits. These warrants, as he now understood the Chief Secretary, were not being renewed throughout the proclaimed districts of Ireland, but only in those places or parts where the importation of arms was feared. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH assented.] That being the case, he could only say it was a great amelioration of the condition of the Irish people; and he desired to know now if there would be any objection, when these warrants became necessary, to have a magistrate's signature attached to them.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the hon. and learned Member had correctly appreciated the state of affairs which existed. In certain parts of Ireland general warrants were in force, but he could not name the places publicly. 1979 No change had been made in the form of the warrant, and, generally speaking, no warrants for searches were issued without the places being specified.
§ MR. BUTTwas glad to find that general warrants were not issued, except in special cases; but still, the general warrant was legally in force.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Continuance of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 74, as amended by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 89).
§ MR. BUTTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 4, in line 17, the omission of the words, "as amended by the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the eleventh and twelfth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter seventy-nine." The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude from the operation of the present Bill a power which was no longer required—namely, that of entering a meeting held for a seditious or treasonable purpose and seizing papers, and of remaining there as long as was thought fit. Such a provision might be suited for 1848, but it was altogether uncalled-for now as regarded any part of Ireland.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 17, to leave out the words "as amended by the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the eleventh and twelfth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter seventy-nine."—(Mr. Butt.)
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. He was not prepared to admit that the provision referred to was wholly uncalled-for. A statement had been made and repeated more than once in the course of the debate which he would take this opportunity to correct. The noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) without, of course, wishing to misrepresent him (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had said that he had stated in his speech on the second reading of the Bill, that the Fenian conspiracy was now of the least importance. What he said was that three evils were to be guarded against by this Bill, and the least of the three was Fenianism; but he had never said that this conspiracy which was in full force so short a time ago had lost its importance.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 68: Majority 33.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, altering the year when the operation of the clause should expire from 1880 to 1876; but with the permission of the House he would withdraw it, as the question which it involved was one which had already been discussed and disposed of.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANmoved, as an Amendment, that "1877" should be substituted for "1880."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 21, to leave out the word "eighty," and insert the words "seventy-seven."—(Captain Nolan.)
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHagreed with the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) in thinking that this was a matter which had already been disposed of.
§ MR. BUTTmaintained that it was quite a different question, the former decision having reference to the powers relating to arms.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, the principle had been affirmed on three separate occasions.
§ Question put, "That the word 'eighty' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 85: Majority 2.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Chairman to a matter connected with the closing of the door of the House at the time of a division. He had noticed on several occasions lately that there appeared to be a want of harmony between the running out of the sand and the closing of the door. If a Rule of the House required that the door should be shut whenever the sand in the glass had run out, he had no doubt the Chairman would take care that it should be strictly enforced. In discussions like the present—discussions in which Irish Members felt so strongly—it was extremely important that there should be 1981 the utmost accuracy in the observance of the rules relating to divisions.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member for the county of Galway is perfectly right in assuming that the moment the sand in the glass has run out the ringing of the bell ought to cease and the door ought to be closed. I have always risen in my place at that moment for the purpose of showing that the door ought then to be shut. It has, however, happened sometimes that, owing to a crowd of Members rushing in, it has been difficult to carry out the Rule with the utmost precision. My attention was privately called to the matter yesterday, and I at once put myself in communication with the Sergeant-at-Arms in order to secure that, as far as possible, the door should always be closed at the proper moment.
§ CAPTAIN NOLAN, as he was at the door, wished to say that he thought everything there on the last occasion was conducted with perfect fairness towards both sides. On other occasions, two or three days ago, he might have complained of what occurred.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, he wished to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name. As originally drawn, the clause proposed to exempt the Odd Fellows and Free Foresters from the operation of the statute against unlawful societies; but after further consideration of the matter, the Government had come to the conclusion that it would be better to follow as closely as possible the words of the Friendly Societies Act for England, a course which would have the advantage of placing the law of both countries more nearly on the same basis and also of including within its protection other friendly societies besides the Free Foresters and Odd Fellows. He begged therefore to move, in page 4, line 21, to leave out from after "eighty" to end of Clause, and insert—
But the provisions of the said Acts shall not extend to any society now established, or hereafter to he established, under the statutes regulating Friendly Societies, or to any meeting of the members or officers thereof, in which society, or at which meeting, no business whatever is transacted other than that which, directly and immediately, relates to the objects of the society as declared in the rules thereof, and set forth in the certified copy thereof: Provided, That the trustees or other officers of the society, when required 1982 under the hands of two of Her Majesty's justices of the peace, shall give full information to such justices of the nature, objects, proceedings, and practices of such society; and, in default thereof, the provisions of the said Acts shall be in force in respect of such society.
§ MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONsaid, that, when it was first proposed to exempt by name the Free Foresters and Odd Fellows, he had put on the Paper an Amendment to exempt another society in which he was interested—namely, the Orangemen, who were entitled to equal privileges with those other associations; but the Amendment just moved by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland deprived him of the opportunity of moving his own Amendment. He certainly would not claim for the Orangemen a privilege that he would not extend to other societies. At the same time, he was not prepared to admit the illegality of the Orange Society, still less could he for a moment allow that the aims of that institution should be put on a par with those of the Ribbon Society. The Ribbon Society had for its object murder and assassination; whereas the Orange Society had for its object the maintenance of the Protestant religion, the support of the rightful Sovereign, and the upholding of the laws of the Realm, the Legislative Union, and the succession to the Throne in the House of Brunswick being Protestant. It was composed exclusively of men who were attached to the principles of the Reformation and averse from religious persecution. He knew it had been the custom to malign the Orange Society, and he did not pretend that every member of it was individually infallible; but he asserted that it had a noble purpose, and one with which every loyal citizen of the Empire should sympathize.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had implied that Foresters and Oddfellows came within the provisions of the Acts against illegal oaths. He was informed that the Foresters took no oaths, and he knew the Oddfellows did not; and he therefore wished for some explanation on this point.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, that last year it was suggested that a clause should be introduced to prevent the possibility of these societies being exposed to penalties under the Unlawful Oaths 1983 Acts. The Friendly Societies Act (1855) provided an exemption in favour of these societies only against the Unlawful Oaths Act—the 14 & 15 Viet. c. 48—then in force in Ireland, but long since spent. As it was intended by this Bill to continue the measures against unlawful oaths it was thought desirable to renew the exemption, and he had done so as nearly as possible in the words of the English Friendly Societies Act. There was no insinuation that these societies were conducted in such a way as wilfully to expose themselves to the provisions of the Unlawful Oaths Acts.
§ MR. BUTTsaid, it was the misfortune of his hon. and learned Friend to mislead the Committee when he addressed them on this Bill. This Bill had no more to do with unlawful oaths than any Bill which had been introduced by the Government; but it was a Bill to prevent the use of signs and passwords in Ireland. Now, any society in England could have signs and passwords; then why should there be a law against the use of such things in Ireland? Although he did not intend to oppose the clause, he thought that this legislation against signs and passwords was most absurd and childish.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GIBSONproposed, as an Amendment, to add to the end of the clause the following words:—
Provided always, That all Freemasons or Friendly Brothers who have by reason of inadvertence or neglect not heretofore complied with the directions contained in the second section of the said Act of the second and third Victoria, chapter seventy-four, shall be, and they are hereby indemnified, freed, and discharged from all penalties incurred by reason of any such inadvertence or neglect: And inasmuch as certain associations of Freemasons exist which according to the rules and usages of the said society are not denominated lodges, but are designated councils, chapters, colleges, priories, preceptories, or otherwise, it is hereby enacted that any person making any such certificate upon oath as in the second section of the said Act of the second and third Victoria, chapter seventy-four mentioned, shall be at liberty to designate in such certificate the society, the holding whereof shall be therein certified by the name or designation by which it is usually distinguished according to the usage of the said society of Freemasons: Provided also, That if any such certificates shall be duly registered within one year after the passing of this Act, it shall not be necessary in any succeeding year to register with the clerk of the peace the name or denomination of any branch of the said societies of Freemasons, or the usual place or places, 1984 or the time or times of its meetings, or the names or descriptions of the members thereof, anything in the said Act of the second and third Victoria, chapter seventy-four, to the contrary notwithstanding.Some hon. Member had on another occasion referred to the fact that the Lord Lieutenant was a Mason. This was true. He belonged to the Grand Lodge, which had been duly registered according to the requirements of law. [Mr. CALLAN: Since when?] Since the Lord Lieutenant had been a member of the lodge it had been registered, and therefore his Excellency was in no sense open to any imputation of acting in violation of the law. The Masons were a charitable body, and everyone knew that both the Masons and the Friendly Brothers, if they were proud of anything, were proud of their loyalty. Owing to negligence or inadvertence, however, the secretaries of the various divisions had omitted to perform the necessary work, and the result was, as had been stated in the Amendment, that these loyal and charitable bodies had not entirely complied with the requirements by which they were to be exempted from the purview of the statute. The Amendment was intended to exempt those bodies from the penalties they had incurred. He himself had the honour to belong to both of the societies, and he was not sure whether he was not within the purview of the Acts.
§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGUrose to Order. He had listened to his hon. and learned Friend, as he did not care to interrupt him whilst he was speaking, but he wished to put it to the Chairman whether the clause could be proposed. In Sir Erskine May's book, page 502, it was stated that—
No amendment could properly be proposed to a clause irrelevant to the matter of that clause," and "If a clause or amendment irrelevant to the subject-matter of the Bill be offered, the Chairman will decline to put the question."—[pp. 502, 507.]Well, the title and scope of the Bill were utterly alien to the subject-matter of this clause. It was a Bill to continue certain Peace Preservation Acts in Ireland; it was a Bill imposing Pains and Penalties on Ireland; but this clause was to indemnify certain rich persons from the penalty of felony which they had incurred. In the next place, they had incurred that penalty under an Act which was not embodied in this Bill, 1985 the 50th Geo. III; and, thirdly, this Bill was only a temporary Act, whereas the effect of the Amendment would not be temporary; it would extend to all time. The scope of the Amendment and the Bill, therefore, were not identical. It would be a great misfortune if that House should send to Ireland a Bill of most severe Pains and Penalties, which contained within it a clause of indemnity to certain rich persons, while inflicting penalties on the poor.
§ MR. MELDONalso rose to Order. He wished to know whether an hon. Member who admitted that he was himself liable to the penalty of felony could come to that House and ask to be relieved of it?
§ MR. GIBSONwould admit that perhaps he might be out of Court on that score; but he had been extremely cautious when he stated that he belonged to these bodies, for he had said that he was not "sure" that he was affected. In answer to the noble Lord, he might say that the Masons were not all rich, for the members of that body did not belong to any particular class; therefore, it was a mistake to say that the clause was to indemnify the rich. The only qualifications absolutely insisted on were loyalty and adherence to all the ordinary dictates of Christian charity. He submitted that the Amendment was perfectly relevant to the Bill, for he only wished by his clause to amend the Acts as they were recited in the Preamble.
§ MR. CALLANasked whether it was consistent with the Rules of the House that a Member should vote on any matter in which he was personally interested?
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not positively know that he was personally interested in the matter.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Standing Order to which reference had been made by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) related to the case of Members who had a pecuniary interest in the matter before the House. He believed that on a former occasion exception had been taken to a Member of the House taking part in the discussion of a case in which he was exposed to a penalty; but the Member having stated in his place that he had received no Notice, it was ruled that he was entitled to address the House. The points raised by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath were much more important. The 1986 first objection was that the Amendment was not within the scope and title of the Bill. That would have been a perfectly valid objection up to the year 1854, when this House adopted a new Standing Order, that any Amendment might be introduced which was relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill; and it was no longer enough to say that the Amendment was not within the scope of the Bill. Of course, it would follow, if such an Amendment were adopted, that the Preamble and Title of the Bill should be amended accordingly. The point, therefore, to be decided was as to the relevancy of this Amendment. Now, though he had for a moment entertained some doubt on the subject, he could not undertake to say that this Amendment was irrelevant. He might, perhaps, point out that some of the words had been embodied in the clause, which had been, however, struck out in order to introduce other words, by which there had been conveyed a somewhat similar exemption. These words stated that the said Act should be so construed as if the provision extended to Foresters and Odd Fellows. It was therefore intended by the framers of the Act that it should have a retrospective effect as far as freeing certain persons from the penalties imposed by the Acts which it amended. Another objection was that there was no mention of the 50th Geo. III. within the four corners of the Bill. But he would call attention to the wording of this particular clause, which stated that it was—
An Act to extend and render more effectual the Act passed in the reign of His Majesty George IV. (to amend an Act passed in the 50th year of His Majesty George III.), as amended by an Act, the 2nd and 3rd of Her Majesty.Therefore, it appeared to him, that a clause containing this Act of George IV. might be described as amending the Act of George III. That Act of George IV. exempted Masonic lodges from certain penalties attaching to them, and he could not see that an Amendment further extending the mitigation provided by the Act of George IV. to the Masonic body in Ireland was irrelevant. Therefore, having given the best consideration in his power to the important points raised by the noble Lord, he considered the Amendment in Order, and could not refuse to put it from the Chair.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That all Freemasons or Friendly Brothers who have by reason of inadvertence or neglect not heretofore complied with the directions contained in the second section of the said Act of the second and third Victoria, chapter seventy-four, shall be and they are hereby indemnified, freed, and discharged from all penalties incurred by reason of any such inadvertence or neglect. And inasmuch as certain associations of Freemasons exist which according to the rules and usage of the said society are not denominated lodges, but are designated councils, chapters, colleges, priories, preceptories, or otherwise, it is hereby enacted that any person making any such certificate upon oath as in the second section of the said Act of the second and third Victoria, chapter seventy-four, mentioned, shall be at liberty to designate in such certificate the society, the holding whereof shall be therein certified by the name or designation by which it is usually distinguished according to the usage of the said Society of Freemasons: Provided also, That if any such certificate shall be duly registered within one year after the passing of this Act, it shall not be necessary in any succeeding year to register with the clerk of the peace the name or denomination of any branch of the said Society of Freemasons, or the usual place or places, or the time or times of its meetings, or the names or descriptions of the members thereof, anything in the said Act of the second and third Victoria, chapter seventy-four, to the contrary notwithstanding."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that he, of course, accepted the ruling of the Chairman, and would now address himself to the Amendment. This was not a question whether certain Freemasons were rich and others were poor, but whether Freemasons in Ireland who had contravened the law, and were therefore subject to the heavy penalties of felony, should receive an indemnity under this Bill. It seemed rather hard to impose penalties upon persons who followed the plough in Ireland, and who could not be supposed to be acquainted with laws so complicated and involved, while persons who had much better means of knowing what the law was should receive an indemnity for its transgression. There was a series of Acts, beginning with the 50th Geo. III. c. 102, relating to unlawful oaths, and by these Acts Freemasons were clearly felons, and liable to be transported. The 2 and 3 Vict. c. 54 made the exemption to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded; but in some respects it was still more strict, as it made every society liable to the penalty whose members were known to each other by secret signs and passwords. 1988 It exempted the Freemasons on two conditions, and, if these had been complied with, there would have been no necessity for the hon. and learned Member to bring in an indemnity clause. He had moved for a Return, which would be shortly in the hands of hon. Members, and which would show that not a single lodge in Ireland had fulfilled the conditions. The hon. and learned Member had said that the Grand Lodge had done so since the Duke of Abercorn had joined. But the Duke of Abercorn joined at a time when every member of the lodge was a felon. It was a rule of the debates of this House that no Member should, for the purpose of influencing the debates, mention the name of the Sovereign, and therefore it would not be becoming in him to mention the name of one closely related to the Sovereign. He would, however, state that the Papers ordered would show that the Grand Master was his Excellency the Duke of Abercorn, and the Senior Grand Deacon was the Hon. D. R. Plunket, M.P. The question before the Committee then was whether, in a Bill which inflicted Pains and Penalties on poor people in Ireland not guilty of any crime against the law of God, they should, to please the Government, introduce an indemnity clause in favour of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Solicitor General for Ireland, and others. If a separate Indemnity Bill for the Freemasons were brought in, he did not suppose anyone would oppose it.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he objected to the proposed clause, on the same ground that he objected to Fenianism, to Manchester murderers, or any other proceedings which violated the law. As to the Friendly Brothers Society, the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know that no Roman Catholic could be a member of them; but if he would say that the clause he now proposed was to be an Act of Indemnity for himself, he should certainly not move any Amendment; but, if not, he would do so, and divide the Committee upon it.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was not aware that the Freemasons were an illegal society. They had been recognized in the whole of the Three Kingdoms. It was well known that they were a well-disposed body all over Europe. ["Oh, oh!"] He interpreted the cry of "Oh!" to refer to Italy, but in Italy the King 1989 was at the head of the society. The same was the case in Sweden. In this country the Heir Apparent to the Throne was at their head, and in Ireland their head was the Representative of Her Majesty. It was therefore a pure misrepresentation to say that Freemasons were a secret or illegal body.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he was not a member of the Freemasons' Society, nor did he know what it was. Would any hon. Member tell the Committee why its members were deserving of the exemption it was now proposed to give them? The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Macartney) said the King of Italy was a member, the King of Sweden a member, and so was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. Well, was he not at least able to give him (Mr. Sullivan) the information he required? He wished to know what were their rites, rules, and mysteries? The Committee were asked to vote for an exemption blindfold. Prove the merits and qualifications of the order, and if it was to be a benefit to the human race, let the Committee know a little more about it. He wished some "man and brother," if that was the proper phrase, to tell the uninitiated whether they were morally justified in passing a Bill of exemption of this nature. He knew a great many excellent men who were members of Freemasons' lodges, and had nothing to say against them; but he was ignorant of the mysteries of the craft, and he hoped that some Member would get up and tell the Committee all about it.
THE SOLICITOS GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUUKET)said, there was not, so far as he was aware, any rule in Freemasonry which would prevent the hon. Member for Louth from becoming one of the order. Nor was there any reason why the hon. Member should not become acquainted with all the rites if he saw fit. Only there were certain proceedings of a preliminary character, which, however, were not so formidable as they were supposed to be, and if the hon. Gentleman was disposed to press the matter forward, he should be happy to give him every facility and advantage which lay in his power as a member of the Craft. But the hon. Gentleman must remember it was not they who had dragged this matter forward; it was the ingenuity—the misuse of ingenuity 1990 —of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath who had discovered that the conditions prescribed by the Act had not been complied with. He confessed, though he (the Solicitor General) had read the statute on the subject, and had almost been brought up a Freemason, he was ignorant until now that all the conditions had not been fulfilled, as had been asserted by the noble Lord. There was no doubt that up to a few years ago all these conditions had been fully complied with, and that they would also be complied with in the future. He need scarcely inform the House that the Unlawful Oaths Acts were as severe in England as in Ireland against the Freemasons, and if the noble Lord extended his research to England he might find omissions here also. He considered the proposal before the Committee a very fair one.
§ MR. MUNDELLAhoped the Irish Members would not stultify themselves by voting against this Amendment. They were contending for the same rights and privileges as were enjoyed by their fellow-countrymen in England, and how then could they consistently vote for the retention of a coercive clause against a large section of their fellow-countrymen to whom no crime was imputed? Odd Fellows, Freemasons, and Friendly Brothers were under no coercion in England, and why should they be so in Ireland?
§ MR. MELDONsaid, he did not think this was an Amendment which ought to provoke mirth in any way. This was a Bill affecting Ireland alone; it was a Bill brought forward for the purpose of coercion; and it was proposed to offer an indemnity only to one particular class—the Freemasons, or, in other words, to the rich of the land. ["No, no!"] He maintained that it was so. He said rich, because 99 hundredths almost of the Irish people believed that the Freemasons Society was an illegal society, and a society of which they ought not to become members. Reference had been made to the Viceroy of Ireland. Well, in his opinion, the appointment of the Viceroy to the head of the Freemasons of Ireland was an insult to 99 hundredths of the Irish people. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that the society in Italy was as atrocious a society as ever existed—he could not shut his eyes to the fact that on a very recent 1991 occasion in this metropolis a deputation waited upon the head of the order in England and was received privately.
§ MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEpointed out that "Secret Society" was an equivocal term. A society might be called secret because its rites and ceremonies were secret, or else because it was not known who were its members. In the latter sense Freemasonry was not a secret society, for their names were all published; and if the Ribbon Societies would publish the names of their members there would be no objection to them.
§ MR. CALLANmoved to omit from the proposed Amendment the words "or the names or descriptions of the members thereof."
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that although his own religious opinions would not permit him to join a society like the Freemasons, yet he did not see why he should seek to deny to others the privilege of doing so. He would rather exercise that charity in reference to matters of opinion that it was the duty of all of them to inculcate in Ireland. Gentlemen had from inadvertence offended against the law, and when they wished to withdraw from the unfortunate position into which they had got, he should not join in any attempt to prevent them doing so.
§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGUhoped that there would be no division against the original Amendment, because he thought it would be quite sufficient that they should have protested against the bad taste of the proposed mode of exempting the Freemasons.
§ MR. BUTTalso thought that it would be unfortunate to have a division upon the question, though the matter was not such a light one as some persons supposed. The question was now not as to unlawful oaths, but as to societies which had "signs and passwords." Such societies were declared illegal, but Freemasons' societies were exempted from the enactment if they performed certain conditions, which in many cases had not been performed. It was certain that there were Masonic lodges in Dublin which had not complied with this absurd legislation. As, however, it was persons of rank and position who had violated the law, the matter was not treated as being at all serious. It would have been better if there had been a clause indemnifying every one who was in a 1992 similar position, and not simply persons who were members of a particular society, because in such a mode of proceeding there would be nothing of an exceptional kind, neither would it tend, as the proposed Amendment did, to make felony appear respectable in the eyes of the Irish people.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, his intention was to vote in favour of liberty and against any restrictions upon the rights of his fellow-subjects. There were, he was aware, societies that had "secret signs," and there was a society called the "Catholic Union Society," but he did not know whether that society had any secret signs or not. ["No, no!"] Well, he did not say that it had; but even if it was proved it had passwords, he would never give a vote which would operate against such a society. He would here say that there ought to be but one law for England and for Ireland.
§ Amendment (Mr. Callan) to said proposed Amendment negatived.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 311; Noes 3: Majority 308.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Continuance of certain parts of Protection of Life and Property in certain Parts of Ireland Act, 1871.)
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, in page 4, line 32, moved, as an Amendment, to leave out "seventy-seven," and insert instead "seventy-six," the object of which was to limit the duration of the Westmeath Act to one year. He did not know that it was necessary for him to enter into any general argument on this question, the subject having been already exhausted. The question for the Committee was whether the renewal of the Act for one year only should be adopted.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. BUTTthen moved an Amendment to the effect that so much of the Act of 1871 as provided that no writ of Habeas Corpus should issue to bring up the body of any one arrested under it should be repealed. All that could be intended by the measure was that the Lord Lieutenant should have the power of indefinitely detaining a man in custody instead of bringing him to trial at 1993 the next Assizes; but it was unjust and unprecedented that a man so imprisoned should be shut out from his constitutional right to move for a writ of Habeas Corpus to be brought before the Court to obtain its judgment on the legality and sufficiency of the warrant under which he was detained. There was, he contended, no Act previous to the Westmeath Act which took away the right to a writ of Habeas Corpus which existed at Common Law previous to the passing of any statute. That Act, therefore, was in violation of all the usages of English legislation, and he therefore hoped the Amendment would be assented to.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 38, at the end thereof, to add the words "Provided always, That so much of said Act as provides that 'no writ of habeas corpus should issue to bring up the body of any person arrested or committed or detained by force of a warrant issued under the authority of the said Act' shall be and the same is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Butt.)
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, the Act in question had been drawn with exceptional severity to meet an exceptional state of things, and carried out in a most complete and accurate way that which was the express intention of the Legislature. The Amendment, if carried, would, to some extent, weaken the effect of the Act, and he should not, therefore, advise the Committee to agree to it. No person arrested under this power would be subjected to unfair treatment, but would be dealt with as an untried prisoner.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the hon. and learned Member had altogether failed to meet the constitutional argument raised by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. He (Sir George Bowyer) wished it to be understood, as a matter of Constitutional Law, that the clause did what no suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act ever before effected, because it took away from the subject detained under this Act the Common Law right of Habeas Corpus, and deprived the Sovereign of the right to inquire whether the subject was or was not leg-ally detained. The warrant might be wrong in point of law, yet its legality could not be inquired into. He should, therefore, oppose this unconstitutional provision.
MR. SULLIVANwas confident that nine-tenths of those whom he addressed were under the impression that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act meant no more than that the Lord Lieutenant might detain a man in prison without bringing him to trial; whereas it went further and gave the Lord Lieutenant the power, if necessary, to send a prisoner beyond the jurisdiction of a writ. What his hon. and learned Friend asked was that Parliament should leave untouched the right of the subject to have the legality of the warrant under which he was detained reviewed by one of the Courts of Common Law. Let them confer, if they would, the simple power of detention on the Lord Lieutenant; but let them leave untouched the right at Common Law which existed before the time of Charles II. of challenging the substance of his procedure, and not place the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act beyond all law, all supervision, and all review. Let them not give to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a power which, rather than confer it upon the Monarch of England, they would first take his head. ["Oh, oh!"] They had done so before, and in the history of England there was no constitutional question that had been more fiercely contested in the interests of popular rights. In the present case, while the Act of Charles IL, which they so much boasted of, gave an accused person a right to speedy trial, they were by this Act taking away every constitutional right from the Irish people. Such a clause would give the Lord Lieutenant power to inflict torture in the Irish prisons.
§ MR. RONAYNEappealed to the Leader of the Opposition to give effect on that occasion to the utterance of the late Prime Minister, when a similar Bill was under discussion in a former year, to the effect that he knew not what was worse than tranquillity purchased by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act except civil war. Yet this was the state to which they proposed to reduce Ireland, a country which was at peace and free from agrarian crimes.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGreminded the House that in the case of Wolfe Tone, when sentence of death had been passed upon him by a military tribunal for high treason, the Court of Queen's Bench issued its writ of Habeas Corpus—though the Courts had been 1995 closed—on the ground that there had been illegality in the trial and conviction. He protested against a system under which a man could be removed from one gaol to another, without his family knowing where he was incarcerated.
§ MR. LAWsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick stated that he did not propose by his Amendment to interfere with the really effective part of the clause which empowered the Lord Lieutenant to issue his warrant authorizing the arrest and detention of persons without cause assigned, and without any obligation of bringing them to trial. It appeared to him therefore that the Amendment, leaving untouched that power, was valueless, and not in the least calculated to better secure the rights of the subject. The words, moreover, which were now objected to had been deliberately introduced into the Act by the then Law Officers of the Crown, and approved by the House a few years ago, and he must say he had heard no good reason why they should be omitted. It was a matter of extreme regret to him, as well as those with whom he acted, that exceptional legislation should be still required for Ireland, but, as the necessity unfortunately existed, he thought they might as well continue the Act for a short time longer just as it stood. He supported the clause before the Committee as it stood.
§ MR. BUTTsaid, that even if a prisoner were tortured he could obtain no redress. No Act of Parliament ever contained such a clause as that now in question—a clause which went further than a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and placed a prisoner entirely beyond the pale of the law. Indeed, prisoners had been treated in such a manner that it had wrung from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) the statement that the treatment was terrible. In the case of a man named Casey, the prisoner was most disgracefully treated, and he himself had applied on his behalf for a writ of Habeas Corpus, which was refused by the Judge, who, however, said he would have granted it, but for the existence of the Act. Any imaginable illegality might occur under the Act, and no Court would have the power to inquire into it. This clause if left in its present state would create among the Irish people a rankling hatred of our 1996 legislation, and he, as the clause was not yet passed, might add that it would justly do so. [Cries of "Divide!"]
§ MR. D. MACGREGORrose to say a word on a point of Order. He thought they were entitled to hear what hon. Members had to say, and it was quite impossible to do so if all this noise went on. He could not absolve hon. Gentlemen around him and behind him from being very much in the way of his hearing what had been said on this matter. He did not think it was right, and he protested with all his heart against the practice of people chatting and talking very loudly in this manner.
§ MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEthought they ought to have some explanation from the Treasury Bench for a continuance of those exceptional powers of governing what was supposed to be a free country.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the Westmeath Act, when originally passed, was well considered by the responsible Officers of the Crown. Its provisions being of a very exceptional character, were very carefully worded; and he thought the Committee would be of opinion, that if renewed, it should be renewed in its entirety, and not interfered with by Amendments. Leaving his hon. and learned Friends to deal with the legal aspects of the question, he would say generally that the Government being reluctantly compelled to ask for that renewal of an Act which had proved a most efficient instrument for dealing with the crimes at which it was aimed, could not accept any proposal which might impair the efficiency of that instrument. When the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, a person might be arrested for any crime and kept in prison without trial; but, in the present case, the arrest must be for a particular offence.
§ MR. BUTTreminded the right hon. Gentleman that when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in 1865, the warrant which had to be issued was the Lord Lieutenant's. The right hon. Gentleman had given no reason for this exception upon exceptional legislation—one that in the most despotic times no Parliament had ever passed.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not dispute the general principles which had been enunciated by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), or 1997 the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Bowyer), with regard to the circumstances which led to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, nor did he say that the provisions of the Act of 1871 were not an exceptional interference with the liberty of the subject; but he did say that in 1871, and again in 1873, it had been thought necessary to sanction such exceptional interference; and, in regard to the present measure, it had been admitted that, to some extent at least, they must continue exceptional legislation, and those who were charged with the preservation of peace in Ireland considered that it would be idle to continue the Act of 1871, if the words referred to in the Amendment were to be removed.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that the Bill went further than the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, for it took away from the Judges all power to interfere in regard to any mode of imprisonment, no matter how arbitrary or cruel. He had heard no answer whatever given to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. There was, he believed, no similar provision in any previous Act of Parliament, and he believed it was one of which no lawyer could approve. The argument of the Attorney General came to this—that as they had made a mistake in 1871, and again in 1873, they ought to make the same mistake now.
§ MR. HERSCHELLtook a similar view of the Amendment, and urged upon the Government the propriety of introducing words which would still retain the legal rights of prisoners and of Judges, both of which were taken away by the Bill as it stood. If that was not done, he feared the Bill would cause great mischief in Ireland, where the legislation would be considered more onerous and more severe than any heretofore passed by that House.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could assure the Committee that the words to which objection was now taken were not inserted inadvertently in 1871. As the Bill was introduced in 1871 it did not contain these words, but after the measure came down from the House of Lords his learned Friend Baron Dowse thought they were necessary to make the meaning of the Bill perfectly clear. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) raised 1998 exactly the same point in the discussion on the Bill of 1873; and being then in the unfortunate position of having no legal adviser in that House, he himself promised in Committee on the Bill to make inquiry before the Report whether those words were still deemed necessary. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to have been satisfied with that assurance, and no division was taken on the clause in Committee; nor, from reference to Hansard, did any action seem to have been taken in the matter on the Report. Therefore, he supposed he had then been more fortunate than the legal Gentlemen had been that night in showing that those words were required. ["No."] They certainly were not introduced without due consideration. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick referred to the case of a prisoner named Casey, as establishing the fact that a real practical grievance might arise under the Bill. Now, that man's case was brought forward in a previous year, and he had obtained very full particulars about it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said his statement of Casey's case drew from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) the declaration that the treatment of the prisoner was terrible, and that it was almost incredible that such a thing could occur in a civilized country. Well, repeated memorials from the prisoner and his friends were sent in, which were fully inquired into, and the medical authorities reported that there was no foundation for the statements that Casey was suffering. Indeed, in a memorial presented towards the close of his imprisonment, Casey himself said he had no cause to complain of his treatment in prison.
§ MR. BUTTemphatically repeated the declaration he had previously made on affidavits as to Casey's case. Casey was imprisoned for four years without trial, without accusation, without knowing who were his accusers—his father and his family also swearing that up to the time of his arrest they had not heard oven a suspicion that he had done any illegal act. Yet, notwithstanding all that the Committee were now told, he had stated he had nothing to complain of; but if he wanted an argument to prove the necessity of allowing the broad light of English law to penetrate 1999 into the prisons in which these unhappy men were confined, it would be found in the abject declaration referred to of a man dependent on the good-will of his gaolers. He asked again, had his challenge been answered? Had anyone shown him a single Act of Parliament in which the provision in question had ever been contained?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHreminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was not quite accurate in saying that Casey was confined for four years. The period of his imprisonment was only two and a-half years, he being put in prison on the 13th December, 1871, and released in the month of July, 1874.
MR. SULLIVANread a passage from the affidavit of the man's father, who stated that he had no knowledge of the offence for which his son had been arrested; that he had been kept a long time in prison; that he had not been allowed to speak as to the state of his health; and that he believed if he had the opportunity given him he would be able to refute any charge which might be made against him. Now, such a case as that, he contended, would be a disgrace to the most despotic Government in Europe.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that although the man was not in prison for four years, he was arrested without a warrant, kept in prison without trial, and discharged without anything having been alleged against him. Such a proceeding was a disgrace to civilization and to a constitutional system. In order to put an end to such an atrocious system, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that the very object of this Act was to permit of persons being arrested without a warrant. But, he asked, was anything more than mere imprisonment intended? In the case under notice, the prisoner was arrested because he was suspected, and kept in solitary confinement for between three and four years, and debarred from all communication with his family. His belief was that the man was forgotten, and remained in prison until his case was brought before the House. It excited great astonishment, and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield characterized the transaction in terms justly befitting it. The right hon. Baronet promised to make inquiry. He did so, 2000 and in the most secret manner the man was immediately released. That showed that, in the opinion of the right hon. Baronet, there was neither sufficient ground for bringing the man to trial nor for keeping him in prison. The same kind of legislation was now proposed when there was not a single person in prison. If this Bill should pass, he trusted the House would pass it in such a shape that if a man was imprisoned he should not be prevented from bringing his case before the Courts to ascertain whether the warrant was lawfully granted or not.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that the Home Rule Party had repudiated the Leadership of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), and be was glad of the opportunity to declare that the English Liberal Party, with whom the Home Rulers wished to act, repudiated that Leadership also.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided.—Ayes 113; Noes 238: Majority 125.
§ MR. DISRAELIthought the best thing the Committee could do would be to proceed with the Bill, and so avoid a Morning Sitting.
MR. SULLIVANwas willing to proceed with the Bill; but if it was intended to have a Morning Sitting, he thought the House ought to adjourn as soon as possible.
§ MAJOR O'GORMANfailed to see why there should be a Morning Sitting, and hoped somebody would divide the House upon the subject.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will this day, at Two of the Clock, again resolve itself into the said Committee."
§ MAJOR O'GORMANmoved that the House meet at 4 to-morrow instead.
§ MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Two of the Clock."—(Major O' Gorman.)
2001§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Two of the Clock' stand part of the Question."
MR. SULLIVANappealed to his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Motion, as there was a clear understanding that there was to be a Morning Sitting.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.