PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 2 March 1881)

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
resumed: By the Act of 1847, a maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years; with or without hard labour, might be passed. In 1875, Parliament altered the penalty by reducing the imprisonment to a period not exceeding one year; and the Justices, with the consent of the person charged, were vested with a summary jurisdiction, in the exercise of which they might impose a sentence of not more than three months' imprisonment. In this Bill, the jurisdiction was further limited by the abolition of the imprisonment for one year, and the substitution of summary jurisdiction not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding £20. Thus, for the first time under this Bill, the alternative of a small pecuniary penalty might be substituted, at the discretion of the magistrates, for the more serious penalty of imprisonment. Beyond that, he must say, there was nothing unprecedented in the duration given to the Bill; for the Act of 1875 provided for its continuance for five years till the 1st June, 1880. He had still to observe that hon. Members had attacked the representatives of law and order in Ireland. From the Judges upon the Bench to the magistrates in Petty Sessions, no person was too high nor too low not to be subjected sometimes to the exceedingly good-humoured and sometimes, he would say, if it were not un-Parliamentary, to the insolent observations of hon. Gentlemen in that House.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
rose to Order, and asked the Speaker, whether it was Parliamentary for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that hon. Members made insolent observations?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
motioned the hon. and learned Gentleman to proceed.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
explained that he had said if it were not un-Parliamentary he would use the word; but he did not use it, because it was not Parliamentary.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
inquired whether that form of expression was in Order?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, he had not quite caught the expression.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
The expression, Sir, was—that if it were Parliamentary the hon. and learned Member would say that the observations of the Irish Members were insolent.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had not quoted him quite accurately. He had said that, from Judges to magistrates, no one was too high or too low not to be subjected to the sometimes exceedingly good-humoured, and sometimes, he would say, if it were not un-Parliamentary, to the insolent observations of hon. Gentlemen in that House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
thought that the hon. and learned Member would see the propriety of withdrawing that expression.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, that, after that intimation, he would, of course, withdraw the expression. He would not characterize the language at all, because there appeared to be no expression Parliamentary enough to convey his opinion on the subject. He would conclude by saying that at all times there was a class in all communities to which all rulers were necessarily objectionable. But all would remember the expression, for rulers were not a terror to good works, but to the evil.

§ MR. DAWSON
said, that, if the Government had put forward their Senior Wrangler to introduce the Bill, it appeared as if they had intrusted its defence to the Junior Freshman, for a more lamentable case of failure to prove the necessity of a measure he had never heard than the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He had gone back upon the erroneous statistics and other worthless Papers presented to the House, and referred to murders in Ireland; but he (Mr. Dawson) would put it to the House whether it was becoming of the hon. and learned Gentleman to reiterate the calumny against the Irish people, after the untenableness of the assertion had been shown over and over again? The hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward another case of threatening letters to justify the Government. It was, however, not included in the Government's famous list 48 of 1,327, but had been sprung upon the house at that 11th hour as an additional reason for this Bill. With regard to shooting at the police, why was not the shooting affair at Kensington considered a proof of the necessity for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act and an Arms Act in England?
It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.