§ Clause 18 (Punishment for offence against this Act).
§ MR. M'COANhoped the Committee had now reached an Amendment which, without much advocacy from himself or his hon. Friends, would commend itself to the good sense of the Government. The words of the Amendment, he need hardly inform the Committee, were not his own, but were taken textually from the Trades Union Act; and, inasmuch as the Committee had just heard from the Prime Minister that he was disposed to follow generally the lines of that Act, he (Mr. M'Coan) hoped the Government would accept the principle, if not the exact words, of the Amendment he had placed on the Paper. The clause, as it stood, imposed a penalty for an offence against the Act of imprisonment, with 1154 or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months. He was not exceeding the probabilities of the administration of this Act when he said that, in the great majority of cases, the actual penalty inflicted would be imprisonment with hard labour for six months. When the Committee remembered that some of the offences created by this Bill were, morally speaking, but slight offences, they would admit that six months' imprisonment with hard labour was a very heavy penalty. He would not weary the Committee by going through the list of offences created by Clauses 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill; but in support of his Amendment he would remind the Committee that, under Sub-section (d) of Clause 5, it was an offence to commit even a technical assault on any constable, bailiff, process-server, or other minister of the law; and for such an offence any person was liable to imprisonment for six months with hard labour. Unless the intention of the Government, in pressing on that legislation, was to act with a degree of severity amounting to cruelty, he hoped they would accept some mitigation of the penalty, and he hoped so all the more confidently because the Prime Minister himself had declared his willingness to follow the lines of the Trades Union Act.
§ MR. M'COANadmitted that the cases were not exactly on all fours; but he failed to see any reason why there should be a substantial difference of punishment. The punishment provided by the Trades Union Act was found to be abundantly adequate for even the gravest cases under that Act. Three months' imprisonment with hard labour was no trivial matter, and he considered it would be amply sufficient for such offences as those enumerated in Clauses 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill. He submitted his Amendment with confidence, and its acceptance by the Government would be a concession to the Irish Members, and through them to their constituents, which would be very gratefully appreciated.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 10, to leave out all after "shall," to end of Clause, and insert "if summarily convicted be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a
1155
term not exceeding three months."—(Mr. M'Coan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'be liable' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he did not see why the punishment under this Act and under the Trades Union Act should not be assimilated. A moment ago the Prime Minister admitted that he had used the words attributed to him by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan); but the right hon. Gentleman qualified his admission by stating that the circumstances of the case must be taken into account. It was for the Government to show that the circumstances of Ireland were more aggravated than those with which the Trades Union Act was intended to deal. He (Mr. Synan) ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would not find any such difference in the circumstances as would warrant an increased punishment for the offences under this Act.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had not risen earlier, because he thought that, on the main point raised by this clause, there could be no doubt as to what were the intentions of the Government. The power of summary jurisdiction, he took it, was regarded by every hon. Member present as an extremely important part of the Bill. If the Government were prepared to accept the very sweeping and important Amendment in the scale of penalties, which could be imposed on summary conviction, they would show considerable weakness. The hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had quoted some words of the Prime Minister which he (Mr. Trevelyan) was certainly not competent, at that moment, to explain. The Prime Minister had supplied a most important reservation to these words; and it appeared to him (Mr. Trevelyan) that the first adaptation which the circumstances of Ireland required was that the people should know that the punishment under this most important and exceptional Bill should be certain. It would be very unwise to persuade the people that, in the case of some weak magistrate, they might escape with some money punishment. It could not be said that the limit of punishment laid down in this clause was exceptionally severe, for if the Committee looked at the powers of punishment given by the Petty Ses- 1156 sions Act, they would see that Justices in Petty Sessions had power to impose penalties as severe for offences not more heinous than those contemplated by this clause. By the Habitual Criminals Act, 1869, any person who assaulted a constable while in the discharge of his duty might be, on summary conviction, imprisoned for six months' with hard labour. It must be remembered what the offences under this Act were, and how grave they were. The hon. Gentleman spoke of them as light offences; but what were they? They were—Intimidation, riot, or unlawful assembly, forcible possession, assaults, cases of grievous bodily harm, assaults on constables, taking part in prohibited meetings, being out in a proclaimed district at night, being a member of an unlawful association. The hon. Members who had spoken on this clause must remember that not only was he able to argue that a Justice in England could, on summary conviction, impose severe punishment; but he was able to argue that in England very heavy punishment indeed could be given for offences under indictment. This Bill was specially framed to meet the difficulty of Ireland, which was the impossibility of convicting on indictment; and, therefore, if he was able to show that not only as heavy, but heavier punishment, was given in England for indictable offences, he had a right to ask that substantial punishment should be awarded in Ireland on summary conviction. The Government, however, was willing to make one relaxation, which he thought would meet the general sense of the Committee. The Government was of opinion that in regard to the 7th clause, considering that the question was not one of a riotous meeting, but a meeting which the Government prohibited for the general safety, three months' imprisonment with hard labour would be an adequate punishment to impose upon any person attending such meeting. A person who was out after sunset under suspicious circumstances, and for the commission of crime, ought to be punished, and punished severely; but the Government felt that in the case of men who were merely out under suspicious circumstances, it would be sufficient to provide a punishment of three months' imprisonment with hard labour. If this punishment were enforced rigorously, his belief 1157 was that it would be found quite ample. With the exception of these alterations, the Government meant to adhere to the scale of punishment provided in the Bill.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not think the Chief Secretary for Ireland could really expect the Irish Members or the Committee to set great store on the concession which he had said the Government were prepared to make. What did that concession amount to? If a man attended, it might be through curiosity, a meeting which the Lord Lieutenant had declared he considered likely to prove dangerous to the public peace or safety, he should not be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer term than three months; and the second concession was that, if a man were found out after dark under suspicious circumstances, he also should not be liable to imprisonment for more than three months. But what were suspicious circumstances? In this country it was a suspicious circumstance to be well known to the police; in Ireland the police would regard it as a very suspicious circumstance if they met, after dark, a man whom they did not know. Therefore, if a man were travelling in Ireland, in a district where he was not well known to the police, and he was met by a policeman, he would be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland expected the Irish Members to consider that a concession to that effect was to be regarded as a very important alteration in the attitude of the Government. There were other offences under the Bill, for which this clause provided a punishment of six months' imprisonment. One was intimidation. Now, intimidation was an offence of a very elastic character. Under the provisions of this Bill—
Every person who wrongfully and without legal authority uses intimidation, or incites any other person to use intimidation, firstly, with a view to cause any person or persons, either to do any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to do …. shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.If a man had a marriageable daughter who was over 21 years of age, and that daughter proposed to marry the man of her choice against the will of her father, and if the father threatened her with the 1158 loss of her dowry, he would be guilty of the offence of intimidation; he would be endeavouring to induce his daughter, of full age, to abstain from marrying the man she wished, a thing she had a perfect legal right to do. The next clause furnished the Committee with another specimen of what were offences against the Act. It was an offence against the Act for which a man might be sentenced to hard labour for six months, if he committed an assault upon "any constable, bailiff, process server, or other minister of the law." There was one very peculiar feature about this clause, and it was this—that it entirely differed from clauses in the Act relating to this country. By the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 39—the Habitual Criminals Act—assaults on policemen were provided for under that Act; a person who assaulted a constable when in the discharge of his duty should, on summary conviction by two or more Justices, be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding £20, or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour. The peculiar feature of the clause in this Bill was that it was not necessary that a man should assault a constable when in the execution of his duty; and if a constable, bailiff, process-server, or other minister of the law was assaulted, no matter when and to what extent, he could have his assailant before the Justice and cause him to be imprisoned for six months with or without hard labour. The Chief Secretary for Ireland felt the injustice of the difference which it was proposed to establish between the two countries, and he said the Committee must consider the summary convictions in Ireland as corresponding with convictions on indictment in England. Nothing was more monstrous than to take such a view of the matter. Why were they to regard such petty offences as he had referred to, committed in Ireland, as of the same heinous character, and punishable in the same severe manner, as such crimes as attempts to murder and assaults to do grievous bodily harm committed in this country? He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not think that even the Chief Secretary for Ireland considered that the concessions he had announced were at all such as the Irish Members might fairly expect from the Government. He thought the Govern- 1159 ment might fairly concede that any assault for which, a man should be proceeded against under the clause should necessarily be of a very serious and aggravated character; but, no doubt, any observations he had to make on this matter would more properly be made on a subsequent Amendment.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsupported the Amendment, which would only alter the clause insomuch that it would reduce the penalty to be imposed under it. The Amendment was so reasonable that he could not understand how the Government could reject it.
§ MR. LALORsaid, the Chief Secretary seemed to forget altogether that this Bill created crimes that had hitherto been utterly unknown in Ireland. There were instances where the police had prosecuted children and others for such offences as whistling "Harvey Duff," and offences of this character would be constantly brought before the Court under the Act. Under the circumstances the Amendment was very fair and reasonable.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply to the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), said, that the punishment attaching to similar offences under the ordinary law were more severe than had been mentioned. It was intended to move the Amendment carrying into effect the concession made on the part of the Government upon the Report.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, there could be no denying that the Government made a very substantial concession when they changed the provision of this clause, inflicting six months' imprisonment on those who were guilty, into three months' on those who were not guilty of anything. But what he should like to see was that those who were not guilty of anything should receive no punishment whatever. He would suggest, therefore, that the Government should go still further in regard to this second class of persons and remove from their case the infliction of hard labour.
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, the clauses of the Bill were so stringent and comprehensive that they would include the most trivial offences, and it would be 1160 very unjust and unfair to inflict the extreme punishment of six months' imprisonment in the case of offences so small in themselves as whistling a tune to which the police might object, or attending a meeting which was proscribed, but which the person charged might not have known was proscribed, as, naturally enough, he might never have seen the notice in the newspaper. Therefore he asked the Government if they would not go a little further and accept this Amendment?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it appeared to the Government that some of the offences under the 4th, 5th, and 6th clauses of the Bill might be of a very aggravated character; and, as they were creating a special tribunal, with a special jurisdiction to try persons charged with those offences, it would be absurd if they did not provide punishment to some extent adequate to the offence. They had to deal with the maximum offences, as well as the small offences, and, in order to meet them, they must have this maximum punishment in the Bill. They must, by legislation, assume that the law would be administered justly, and they were not to assume that it would be administered unjustly. By the Act of 1870, the punishment was six months with hard labour; and the Government, in reference to the 7th and 8th clauses, had altered that to three months with hard labour. The object of the Bill was to let persons know that, under the exceptional circumstances of Ireland, these matters which were dealt with as offences under the Act were crimes. This was the object of the Bill, that while these exceptional circumstances existed, the Legislature regarded these offences as crimes; and, in order to effect that object, it was absolutely essential that adequate punishment should be provided. A small money penalty might be no punishment at all; because it might be paid by a third party, and in that way it would not be regarded as a punishment.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, that, in his apprehension, the statement that aggravated crimes—which, perhaps, would be the subject of indictment—would be contained under Clauses 4, 5, and 6 of this Bill, was no justification at all for applying the punishment of six months' imprisonment with hard labour to offences 1161 such as "Boycotting" and exclusive dealing, which, if the Bill did not become law, and unless they had assumed a serious character in some cases in Ireland, would never have had the expression of "crimes" applied to them. Now, was it not in the power of Her Majesty's Government to settle proportionally the punishment adequate to each of the offences? For the large offences, the punishment of six months' imprisonment was possibly too small, and. for the small offences it was possibly too great; and, certainly, if it was left to the discretion of the magistrates in Ireland the consequence would be that they would visit every offence with the full punishment, or something like the full punishment. Why were such offences as exclusive dealing to be punished with hard labour for six months, without the alternative of paying a fine? It was not stated absolutely, but insinuated by the hon. and learned Attorney General for England, that the reason for that was that some third parties would come forward and pay the fine, and that the awarding of a fine would be no punishment at all. There was no evidence of that. There had been no justification given for the punishment proposed, and the Amendment ought to be accepted.
§ MR. GRAYquite agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General for England that some of the offences that might come under these clauses might be of a very serious character, and require very serious punishment; but crimes, such as an assault upon a constable, might vary from the most grievous assault, which would be insufficiently punished by six months with hard labour, down to a mere technical assault, which would be too heavily punished by imprisonment for one single day. He himself would not object to see six months' hard labour inflicted in serious cases; but he wanted to have a discretion left to the Courts, where a mere technical offence had been committed, not to inflict a stigma upon the name of an individual, even with the sentence of hard labour for one single hour. If the clause remained as it was at present, they gave no option to the magistrates but absolutely to acquit or discharge the individual, or sentence him to some term, be it small or great, of imprisonment with hard labour. 1162 Take the case that had been pointed out already, of a large number of individuals attending a public meeting which had been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant, but of which they had no information.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, it was provided in the Bill that two magistrates must attend at the meeting and notify the people that it was prohibited, and no criminal offence would be committed, except in the case of persons who refused to withdraw after a reasonable time.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that justice would be sufficiently met in the case of a mere technical assault upon a constable by the infliction of a fine. He could understand the Government having a solid and reasonable objection to a fine without imprisonment; but what was proposed was to leave a discretion to the Court to inflict a fine or imprisonment, as the justice of the case might require.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he really thought that hon. Gentlemen who called themselves Liberals should consider what was said in regard to this Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan). The right hon. Gentleman had made a statement as to the Amendment, which he (Mr. Labouchere) did not hesitate to qualify as monstrous in coming from a Liberal. The right hon. Gentleman said he was perfectly ready to make concessions, and what were these concessions? The first was, that if a person happened to be present at a public meeting which was prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant, and if he did not read the proclamation—that was to say, if he was simply going by and found himself at one of these public meetings—he thought three months' hard labour would be sufficient.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the proclamation would be read, and he must refuse to leave within a reasonable time before the penalty would apply.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, if he refused to do what they had a perfect right to do in this country, and what he trusted everyone would have a perfect right to do, to attend a public meeting, whether the Executive objected to it or not, the punishment that was to be meted out to him—and this was a concession, remem- 1163 ber—was three months' hard labour. And the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that he would concede that if a person was found out after dark, and was arrested by a policeman on suspicion, the maximum punishment that would be inflicted upon him should be three months' hard labour. Why? Because he thought that was enough for a man who had not committed any crime. He (Mr. Labouchere) should say it would be enough. He looked upon this Bill, upon every clause of this Bill, not as though Lord Spencer and the present Irish Chief Secretary were to be in power during the three years, but as if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) was to be in power, and he asked the Committee whether they would be fully prepared to give such absolute powers to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire? He (Mr. Labouchere) could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had no personal feeling against him; but he would as soon go to Tripoli, or to any place where despotism reigned, as to Ireland with these clauses in the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of affairs there. Did the Committee think that a man found out after dark in Ireland, and who had committed no crime, ought to be punished with three months' hard labour, simply because a policeman took it into his head to think he was a suspicious person, and might commit some sort of crime? Let them punish those outrages and crimes if they liked. Nobody objected to that; but what they wanted was to distinguish between the punishment meted out to men who had committed crimes, and those who had not. He said that the mere suspicion of the possibility of committing a crime ought not in itself to be an offence which ought to be punished with a degrading punishment such as hard labour.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was not to assume that any person found out after dark, under any circumstances, without reasonable suspicion, was to be punished by three months' hard labour. He should look at the other circumstances of the question. Suppose a person was found out at night, with a gun in his hand, behind a wall, was it too much to give him three months' im- 1164 prisonment? [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: You can do that under the present law.] Yes; but that was what the hon. Gentleman said. He would not have committed a crime; but he might be about to commit a crime. This was an example of what might take place. If this man was there for the purpose of "Moonlighting," waiting to commit murder or violence, was it to be said that under no conceivable circumstances of that kind it would be right to commit him to prison?
§ MR. MACFARLANEpointed out that this was very much a question of confidence in the Administration; and if the trial of those cases were committed to English or Scotch magistrates who were qualified by law, and who had not taken any part in the land war in Ireland, more confidence would be felt in the Administration, and there would be less objection taken to the mere wording of the clause; but, judging of the future from the past, they had reason to expect that the law would not be properly administered in Ireland.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that every man in that House and country must recognize the unhappy state of Ireland, and no one could object to the police arresting a man in the interest of public safety under the suspicious circumstances the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had described; but what they complained of was that a man who was arrested on mere suspicion, and not guilty of any offence, should be punished by three months' hard labour. To arrest a man because he went out of his way, and to punish a man with three months' hard labour on mere suspicion, was contrary to all principles of justice.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, he did not wish to tie the Committee down to the hard-and-fast words of that Amendment, and the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) probably might be carried a little further and meet all the circumstances of the case, if, instead of limiting the reduction of the six months' scale of punishment in the case of the 7th and 8th clauses, he would select cases from the 4th and 5th clauses—he (Mr. M'Coan) would not say the 6th clause, because the 6th clause dealt with aggravated offences, which were morally, as well as socially, criminal. If he would 1165 do that, and make a selection of offences in which he would apply the small scale of punishment, he would not press the matter to a division, and he thought the whole necessities of the case would be met if he did that. He admitted that where a man was found out under a hedge or a wall with a gun to shoot somebody, he would give him more than six months' imprisonment; but a person might be found out in such a case that it would be sufficiently met by a fine or a month's imprisonment. He did not want to minimize punishment where it was deserved; he simply wanted that minor offences should not be met with aggravated and unnecessary punishment.
§ MR. P. MARTINsaid, he thought it would be fair and just that the right of inflicting a pecuniary punishment should be given to the magistrates. The hon. and learned Attorney General had put to the Committee the case of a most aggravated offence dealt with under this clause; but, at the same time, they must recollect that there was also a much smaller offence in contemplation under it; and, in dealing with that small offence, he (Mr. P. Martin) thought this pecuniary penalty ought to be reserved for the magistrates. It would appear to him a very dangerous thing to say to the magistrates in Ireland with regard to such offences as these—"In point of fact you must commit these men to a common gaol with hard labour, instead of inflicting a pecuniary fine for a trifling offence." With all respect to the Committee, he did submit that it would impede the Government in discharging their duty. In 1879, on the recommendation of a Select Committee, who were unanimously of opinion that there should be that elasticity of discretion, an Act was passed for England, to amend the law relating to the jurisdiction of magistrates, and empowering the magistrates to impose a fine for offences punishable on summary conviction, if the Court thought that the justice of the case would be better met by a fine than by imprisonment. It was agreed that that Act should be extended to Ireland, and the only reason that it was not extended at that time was that it was conceived that if they entered upon the Irish Question at that time, it might so delay the Bill that that very useful Bill for England would be thrown out. He trusted that the Committee would 1166 follow the example set on that occasion.
§ MR. BOURKEthought the clause, as it was at present framed, gave the elasticity the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to. The greatest amount of elasticity possible under the Criminal Law could be given under the clause.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he would not vote for this Amendment, but he certainly would propose an Amendment giving the option to magistrates to impose a fine not exceeding £50, for he thought it was an unfair thing that they should compel the magistrates either to acquit or to send a man to prison. If there was anything in this country which ought to be regarded with more suspicion than another, it was the imprisonment of our fellow-citizens. In foreign countries they had imprisonment for very slight offences, and so commonly was it exercised in France that nobody thought anything about it; but in this country they looked upon imprisonment in a different light, and he could not understand how it could be said that there was elasticity in a clause which compelled the magistrates either to acquit or imprison a man. He hoped the Committee would not legislate on the subject in haste and without proper discrimination. He would ask the Government to accept an Amendment to this effect—At the end of the clause to add the words, "or to such fine, not exceeding £50, as the Court may order." There was many a case in which a man might be guilty of an offence of a slight kind, such as "Boycotting," which would require a stern admonition from the law, but which certainly would not deserve imprisonment; and, in such a case as that, they ought to give the magistrates the power of inflicting such a penalty as would mark the offence of a man's conduct, and yet not place a stigma upon him for life. Now, it was said that a certain association would pay these fines. That association could not pay very many fines in this way. Besides, they were going to have a special magistracy, not the ordinary Justices, who might be deterred by fear—they were going to have special magistrates, and yet, for the first time in their legislation, they were giving these magistrates power either absolutely to discharge a man or to imprison him. He trusted the House would not sanction 1167 that innovation on the principles of our Constitutional rights, which gave us a horror of imprisoning any man.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that it would be impossible for the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) to move his Amendment in the event of the Amendment before the Committee being accepted.
§ Mr. COURTNEYin the Chair. [1.45 P.M.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, he thought the object of his Amendment would be substantially met by the substitution of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry); and, therefore, he respectfully asked to be permitted to withdraw his Amendment.
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)Is it your wish that the Amendment should be withdrawn? ["No, no!"]
§ Question, "That the words 'be liable' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. SYNANMay I take the liberty, Sir, of asking whether I am at liberty to move an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)?
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)Is the Amendment on the Paper?
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)No; the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork cannot be put, because the discussion which has been raised and the Motion which has just been put has been on the question whether an alternative money penalty should be allowed, and the Committee has decided that there should be imprisonment in all cases. The question involved in this Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork is not merely the option that a money penalty should be allowed, but it insists upon a money penalty, and only imposes imprisonment in the event of the penalty not being paid.
§ MR. MOLLOYIs the second portion of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) out of Order too?
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he begged to move an Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings)—namely, "In page 9, line 11, leave out 'with or'"—the object being to omit hard labour.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 11, to leave out the words "with or."—(Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
§ Question put, "That the words 'with or' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 18: Majority 120.—(Div. List, No. 217.) [2 P.M.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 12, that the word "six" be omitted after "exceeding," and the word "two" be substituted. That would make an alteration which would effect an approach to the law in this country. If a man was guilty of several of the acts made offences under this Bill in this country, he could only be sentenced to two months' imprisonment, and no ground had been shown for so extreme a sentence as six months as the only sentence that could be given.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, to leave out the word "six," in order to insert the word "two."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. BYRNEsupported the Amendment, and pointed out that, as the clause stated, the magistrates would have no option as to the sentence, and would have to inflict six months' imprisonment on a man, even if he had been unwittingly guilty of an offence.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Committee had discussed this matter on the previous Amendment to reduce the penalty to three months. That had been negatived. The argument was that three months was too small a maximum, and now the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) proposed two months.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he should be content to leave the clause as it stood, provided that the magistrates had some discretion as to the infliction of imprisonment or a fine; but, as the Committee had negatived a discretion being given, 1169 the only course open was to endeavour to restrict the maximum penalty which might be inflicted. That was why he preferred two months instead of three, although he would have agreed to the higher term, if discretion had been given to the magistrates.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 15: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 218.) [2.15 A.M.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 12, after "months," insert "or such, less term as is in that behalf fixed by any section of this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked for some explanation of the Amendment?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that if these words were not inserted, the clause would stand as giving six months' imprisonment for all offences under this section; but his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department wished to mitigate the penalties in some cases, and, therefore, these words were inserted.
§ Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he wished, before the clause was put to the House, to take the ruling of the Chair on the words which he proposed to add at the end of this clause—namely, "or such fine not exceeding fifty pounds as the Court may order." The hon. Member for the County of Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had moved an Amendment which was discussed, and which he then desired to withdraw. The withdrawal, however, had been objected to, and the Amendment was negatived; but this was so important a subject that he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) submitted, in the commonest justice, a discussion and a division on the proposal ought to take place.
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)As the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) is aware, when an Amendment is moved it cannot be withdrawn, except with the assent of the Committee. Opposition was taken to the withdrawal, and the Amendment was negatived. That Amendment sug- 1170 gested the option of a fine, and that having been negatived, it is now incompetent to the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he should move it on Report.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether it was not the fact that the Motion of the hon. Member for the County of Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) was not merely a Motion to substitute a money penalty, or to establish an option, but to reduce the term of imprisonment from six to three months? The rest of the object of the Amendment was to leave to the Judges a discretion to inflict a money penalty of £20. The whole of the Amendment was taken together and negatived in its entirety. Therefore it would be impossible for any hon. Member to move what was tantamount to the same Amendment; but he wished to know whether a portion of that Amendment might not be, by itself, proposed as a fresh Amendment?
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)As the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is aware, if the Motion of the hon. Member for the County of Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had been withdrawn, it would have been competent to entertain a question of varying the money penalty. It was not negatived in its entirety. The second question of mitigation of imprisonment was put by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray).
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. MOOREasked whether the House was to receive any information as to the officials who were to administer this Act? The punishment provided was very severe, and it would fall on the sons of farmers and labouring men, most of whom had been beguiled. This power of summary imprisonment for six months was a very serious matter.
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)The hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) cannot discuss that question on this clause; but on the clause which follows he can.
§ MR. MOOREsaid, he did not think the subject arose on the following clause. It was understood that there were to be special officers appointed to work this clause; and in the following clause a provision was made for the pre- 1171 sence of two magistrates; but he wished to know by whom this clause was to be administered, and whether the same officers and police who were engaged in tracking criminals would administer the Act, or the Resident Magistrates? There should be some guarantee that the clause would not be administered by Resident Magistrates.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he wished to remind the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) how emphatically the doctrine had been laid down that the arrangements with regard to magistrates were purely executive and administrative, and the Government could not consent in any way to place them in the Bill. The nature of the arrangements had been shadowed out on a previous occasion; but the arrangements must be carried out by the Lord Lieutenant's orders.
§ MR. M'COANobjected to the arrangements being left to the will of the Lord Lieutenant.
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)I must point out that this question arises on the next clause; it is premature to discuss it now.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked, whether it was not competent to discuss the nature of the tribunal? The Resident Magistrates were well known to be very much under the guidance of the special magistrates.
§ MR. SYNANcould not conceive why substantial questions on this clause could not be discussed. He thought the punishments under Clauses 7 and 8 had not been sufficiently mitigated, and that there ought to be some distinction made in this clause between the punishments under Clauses 4, 5, and 6. Although unwilling to prolong the discussion, he thought it was absolutely necessary to take a division on the clause, and to amend the clause on Report. The whole matter was left too much to discretion, when it was known who these magistrates would be, and when the promise made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not been placed in the Bill.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYfelt that there ought not to be any doubt upon this subject, or anything that would look like a breach of faith. The Government distinctly promised that in the administration of the Act two magistrates should be required, and that one of them should be a trained lawyer. Did 1172 the Government still adhere to that promise?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the promise was only made so far as it could possibly be carried out. Resident Magistrates who were trained lawyers could not be made at command; but, so far as the condition and list of magistrates allowed, the magistrates would be associated with lawyers.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could not regard that as carrying out the promise given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. [Mr. TREVELYAN: The promise is being considered.] The Committee could not know what had gone on between Dublin and London; they were only going on what had been stated in the House; and he (Mr. Labouchere) thought there had been a distinct pledge given that one of the magistrates should be a trained lawyer. As to the argument of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was perfectly possible to have one lawyer to sit with the Resident Magistrates. He thought there ought to be no misunderstanding as to whether the Government adhered to the pledge given, for upon the faith of it many of the clauses of the Bill had been granted. He should not like to say they had backed out of a promise; but they had certainly given an undertaking from which they could not honourably recede.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, a clear and distinct promise had been given that the new tribunals should consist of two magistrates, one of whom should be a trained lawyer; and the expectation had been that some of those men would be taken from the general public, and not from those who were imbued with the ideas of the class to which there was so much objection. The clause would, practically, be no protection at all, if the magistrates were to be people of that class. The Bill would confer enormous power on the magistrates; and it was of the utmost importance, even from the Government point of view, that the people should have some slight confidence, at least, in the judicial character of the magistrates. If the Government did not carry out their promise the feeling in Ireland would be that accused persons would be sent before what would practically be a military tribunal, and dealt with in a summary manner. In that way the law would be made an in- 1173 strument of vengeance, and not an instrument of justice.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the promise was given by the Prime Minister, and as the right hon. Gentleman was not now present, the Committee could not arrive at a distinct understanding as to the promise; he would further point out that this matter did not arise upon this clause, but upon a clause which the Government proposed to substitute.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsubmitted that the question could not possibly arise on any other clause. The Prime Minister had given a distinct and positive promise; and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman would not recede from it. Why, then, did the Chief Secretary for Ireland say it would be adhered to only as far as possible? It could be adhered to perfectly well. The Government knew very well that there were a number of effete and worthless magistrates in Ireland who would be summoned to Dublin and offered inducement to retire. They, of course, would want to make their own bargain.
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)I must point out to the hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that it is premature to discuss this question upon this clause.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANprotested against this clause as giving too much power.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that with reference to the ruling of the Chair, he was not discussing what the tribunal ought to be; he stood on the pledge given by the Government.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland asked the Committee not to discuss this promise in the absence of the Prime Minister, while the Chief Secretary for Ireland denied that the promise was given as stated.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that the clause would be put into most extensive operation, and would, in many cases, inflict grave hardship, and cause a feeling of aggravation and soreness. A man might be sentenced for what, at that moment, was no crime, and punished by a degrading sentence, involving association with the vilest characters. Why should the Government refuse to mitigate the punishment for offences which were at present legal? Clause 4 was so wide 1174 that any individual taking part in any public affairs might find himself caught in the meshes of this clause, and would be liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. If he (Mr. Gray) attended a public meeting, he could be cast into prison; and even the modifications which had been made as to public meetings offered no adequate protection to individuals; and he was certain that many innocent individuals would be convicted for attending meetings which were made illegal by a proclamation in The Dublin Gazette, but of which they would know nothing. The police were frequently over-zealous, stimulated by inflammatory speeches in that House, on the necessity of taking strong measures, and he feared that under such incentives they would be more active, and would arrest many persons who were innocent; and the special magistrates would consider it obligatory upon them to do something to show that they were properly discharging their duties. The determination of the Government to attach the stigma of crime to men who were perfectly innocent showed a feeling which the people of Ireland would interpret as vindictive towards an entire class, and that would be greatly to be regretted.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, his objection to the clause was, that it might fall into the hands of other administrators than the present Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He regarded with something approaching to horror the possibility of the administration of this Act by a Conservative Government.
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)I must invite the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) to address himself to the Question before the Committee. It is—"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. M'COANthought his objection was very much to the point. This would be a monstrous power in the hands of people in whom the Irish people had no confidence. He also objected to it on account of the tribunal by which it might have to be carried out.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREthought that, when the Executive took power to forbid any political meeting, and when any person declined to withdraw at the order of the Executive, such person, far from 1175 deserving three months' imprisonment with hard labour, might be doing an exceedingly laudable thing. But the main objection was—and in consequence of it, he should vote against the clause—that the option of a fine was not given to the magistrates. No doubt, in some cases, a fine might not meet the circumstances; but the point here was, that if the magistrates considered that the person had violated the letter of the law, no matter what the extenuating circumstances might be, they must punish by imprisonment.
§ MR. FIRTHsaid, that he agreed with the second objection stated by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere).
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, they well knew that for the future, in Ireland, any word spoken, or the slightest movement of the head or eye, would be an act punishable with imprisonment. he hoped that the Government would, at all events, avoid the mistakes made in the appointments under the Land Act, and that they would appoint thoroughly efficient and legally-trained gentlemen, of some practice and standing at the Bar, to adjudicate on these offences. It was to be hoped they would not send out a wool-stapler from Bradford to administer the Act.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would not comment on the absence of certain hon. Members, because he was anxious to remain within the four corners of the Rules of the House, not so much on his own account as on account of the Chairman, the extreme delicacy of whose position he fully appreciated. Those who had opposed the Bill had opposed it tenaciously, obstinately, and he might even say obstructively; and it had been thought fit to take action against them, that action having been stimulated by the Government of which the Chairman was a Member. He merely said this, not to infringe any of the Rules, but to show that he was fully alive to the situation. The clause before the Committee proposed the most severe treatment for offences of a trivial kind. If, for instance, he were to meet a man, and were to say "Fee-fi-fo-fum" to him, and a policeman heard it, and chose to think that it suggested something of an intimidating character, he (Mr. O'Connor) might be liable under this clause to imprisonment with hard labour 1176 for six months. They knew that the powers given to magistrates in Ireland were not used with a very sparing hand, and the imprisonment of ladies and others had given a very good foretaste of what might be expected under this Bill. He asked the Committee to attempt to realize what the clause really meant, and what was the real meaning and significance of the expression "six months' imprisonment with hard labour." Hard labour meant the treadmill, shot drill, the crank, and other labour of that kind, and it could be carried on for not more than 10 or less than six hours per day, exclusive of the time occupied at meals. Then, what was the dietary that these men would have to endure? At breakfast they were to be allowed six ounces of bread and a pint of gruel—two ounces of coarse oatmeal with salt. At dinner they were to be allowed—
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)Order, order! I must invite the hon. Member to confine himself more strictly to the terms of the clause. It is scarcely relevant to the whole scope of the clause to give the Committee a complete account of all the details which the imprisonment inflicted under it involves.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was anxious not to transgress the Rules of Order, but he thought it was important to show the Committee what hard labour really meant. [Cries of "Order!"] He would conclude by warmly protesting against the manner in which his remarks had been interrupted by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 20: Majority 166.—(Div. List, No. 219.) [3.20 P.M.
§ Clause 19 (Court of Summary Jurisdiction).
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved that the clause be struck out of the Bill, the intention being to bring up in substitution another clause which stood on the Paper to give a power of appeal.
§ Moved, "That the Clause be struck out of the Bill."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
1177§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)As a new clause; it cannot be taken now.
§ MR. GRAYhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would take care that the clause was not brought on until hon. Members who were not in the House had the opportunity of re-drafting the Amendments which were at present on the Paper, and making them applicable to the new clause. A number of hon. Members could not enter the House to hand their Amendments to the Clerk at the Table, and he hoped the new clause would not be taken till Monday.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether the special tribunals of two magistrates, who were to carry out the summary powers of the Bill, would have upon them one magistrate who was a trained lawyer?
MR. GLADSTONEIt is extremely unusual for statements in reference to Amendments to be made on the Motion for striking out a clause. I hope we shall be allowed at once to drop this clause.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was only a reasonable thing to ask, and there ought to be no doubt about it. A plain assurance on the point would prevent the putting down of unnecessary Amendments.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked if the new clause would be taken at the present Sitting?
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwanted to know what were the intentions of the Government as to the Sitting. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said some hours ago that, after a reasonable amount of progress had been made, similar to the work done at an ordinary Sitting, he would make a further statement. Since then two clauses had been passed. It was impossible that the Committee could continue its labours indefinitely.
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)Order, order! These remarks are not relevant to the Question 1178 before the Committee, which is that Clause 19 stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not wish to move that Progress be reported or to transgress the Rules of the House. He had merely asked for information.
§ Question put, and negatived; Clause struck out accordingly.
§ MR. SHEILsaid, he should move that Progress be reported, because no reply had been given to the reasonable inquiry of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sheil.)
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he did not think there was any obstructive purpose in that Motion, for the Government had themselves promised to make a statement when a reasonable amount of progress had been made.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTWe have considered this matter with a view to what we think reasonable discussion, and the future despatch of this Bill, and we have come to the conclusion that a proper and fair arrangement would be that the Committee, at its present Sitting, should go through all the clauses of the present Bill, and then stop. There would then be left for consideration the postponed clauses, the substituted clauses, and the proposed new clauses.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he was sorry to hear that declaration. Early in the morning when the Prime Minister made a statement, he spoke in very different terms to that which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had just used. The consequence was that they had been led to anticipate very different treatment, and he thought a very great hardship was being inflicted on a small handful of Irish Members. The Prime Minister had given them some hope, when reasonable progress was made with the Bill—such progress as might be expected from an ordinary day's work in Committee—of respite from a toil which was becoming an absolute physical torture—a species of hard labour inflicted upon Members of the House, even without the intervention of 1179 a tribunal. He had been continuously in the House for 18 hours, and it was unfair to ask him (Mr. Gray) and his Colleagues to continue to discuss all the remaining clauses of the Bill. It was not treating fairly a small minority, even an Irish minority.
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) has not misquoted me, but we differ as to the construction to be placed on my language. What happened, to the best of my recollection, wasth is—about four or five hours ago, the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) stated from the opposite Bench that the Committee ought to proceed regularly with its work, and should not desist until there had been reasonable and full progress, such as might be made at an ordinary day's Sitting. With that declaration my Colleagues and I concurred, and we adopted that language. Now, Sir, upon considering the matter, we are really of opinion that the clauses now remaining in the Bill are clauses that might quite well be disposed of in a day's Sitting. The fact is, I am bound to say that I think we have got a little demoralized in regard to our estimate of what a day's work should be after the great length of time that has been spent upon 16 clauses of the Bill. On the other hand, it is quite true that many of those 16 clauses contain matter of very great difficulty, and of very great delicacy; and some of them may almost be said to be the foundation in themselves of a not unimportant Bill. We have not been very impatient in resenting the apparently slow progress that has been made; but we have now arrived at a point where questions of principle are wholly disposed of, and where the clauses which remain are subsidiary and consequential, and it is our opinion—an opinion on which we propose to act—that we should go on with those remaining clauses; and we do not think we are asking anything undue in asking the Committee to dispose of them. We have also considered the further matter to which I referred this morning, and we conceive it to be our duty, in view of the more expeditious progress of Public Business, to propose to revive on Monday the measures adopted last year, and commonly known as the Resolutions upon Urgency.
§ MR. SHEILDoes the right hon. Gentleman propose to bring in Urgency upon the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill as well as upon this measure?
MR. GLADSTONEThe nature of the proceedings of the House as to Urgency was this—first, a general Resolution was passed, and under that general Resolution it was open to the Ministry to propose to apply the Rule of Urgency to any particular measure; and that proposal, if sanctioned by a three-fourths majority, took effect. Last year the House did apply it to certain Irish Bills; but when we proposed to apply it to Supply we had an inadequate majority, and it was rejected. As to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, it would be altogether premature to entertain any question in regard to it. We have already said that it is on a level with this Bill in regard to its importance; but beyond that I have no proof before me, and I have no right to conclude that a similar opposition will be offered to it. If it is, then will be the time to consider whether it is necessary to make any proposal respecting it.
§ MR. SHEILsaid, he must conclude, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government had no intention of taking Urgency for the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, a resolution which in no way surprised him. He thought it his duty to divide the Committee upon his Motion because of the absence of so many Members of the Irish Party.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsuggested that Clause 30, which defined the duration of the Bill, should not be taken that day, but that it should be postponed until there was a full complement of Irish Members in the House.
MR. GLADSTONEI must say that when I spoke last, it did occur to me that the question of duration was a question upon which a short debate might take place. Most of the clauses appeared to me as if they were clauses that might pass almost without debate. On the question of duration, I thought it very possible that a debate of an hour or two might take place, and that was quite included in the view that I took of a possible day's work. It would be a recession from what I stated a few minutes back if I were to postpone that clause. That clause will be open, like every other, to reconsideration on Re- 1181 port; but I must adhere to my statement.
§ MR. GRAYasked his hon. Friend (Mr. Sheil) to withdraw the Motion to report Progress, as he did not wish to do anything of which the Party would be ashamed. After Clause 20 was agreed to, it might then be renewed as a protest against the physical force used to pass the Bill through the House.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had misled the Irish Members this morning. Under the circumstances, the Irish Representatives would fight the Bill as long as they could.
§ MR. MACFARLANE(who rose amid cries of "Oh!") said, hon. Members, as usual, would not wait to hear what was about to be said before they shouted down any hon. Member they did not wish to hear. There were a number of hon. Members of the House who used the House as a boy used an empty cask. [Cries of "Order!"] What he had to say was, that the Government had come to the conclusion—he would not say that he agreed with them—that a certain number of Irish Members had misbehaved themselves, and they had expelled those Members. He wanted to point out the peculiar injustice it would be to the Irish Members who had not misbehaved themselves—those who behaved to the satisfaction of the Government—to keep them in the House an indefinite time, whereas those Irish Members who had not behaved to the satisfaction of the Government had gone comfortably home. The Prime Minister had led them to believe, perhaps unintentionally, that the passing of two or three clauses would be considered satisfactory progress, and he (Mr. Macfarlane) hoped that course would be taken.
§ MR. SHEILsaid, he was under the impression that Clause 19 had been withdrawn; if that was so, he asked leave to withdraw his Motion; but if it was otherwise he would not withdraw it.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause 20 (Proclamation of districts).
§ MR. GRAY moved an Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)—namely, to amend the clause by inserting in line 35, after "him," "from information duly made on oath and in writing."
1182
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 35, after the word "him," to insert the words "from information duly made on oath and in writing."—(Mr. Gray.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, Her Majesty's Government found it impossible to insert this Amendment.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he thought the Government should not have objected to the Amendment that had been proposed. The Irish Members did not object to the Government getting all the information they could; but they thought that such information should be made on oath and in writing.
§ MR. BYRNEdrew attention to the fact that the Amendment would make the law in Ireland the same on that point as the law in England.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 213: Majority 196.—(Div. List, No. 220.) [4.15 P.M.
§
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (for Mr. SEXTON) moved to amend the clause, by inserting in page 9, line 35, after the word "time"—
At the request of the majority of the justices of the peace for any specified part of Ireland, expressed at a meeting of such justices convened in the prescribed manner.
§ MR. BRODRICKrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was not too late in moving the Amendment, as the word "him," which stood in the clause after the word "time," had been already agreed to?
§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he regretted to say that it was so. By an unfortunate transposition of the Amendments on the Notice Paper, the Amendment was too late.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, in that case he would move the Amendment after the word "him." Although such a course involved the employment of not very elegant phraseology, it was open to no other objection, and he thought they should not be made to suffer for any error that had occurred, considering that they had no control over the manner in which the Amendments were placed on the Paper. He 1183 did not pretend to be able to do justice to the Amendment under the circumstances, and he regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in whose name it stood, and who could have done justice to it, was not present. He begged to move the Amendment as amended, at the same time protesting against the manner in which the Government acted in dealing with the Amendment in the absence of his hon. Friend, in whose name it stood.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 35, after "him," to insert the words "at the request of the majority of the justices of the peace for any specified part of Ireland, expressed at a meeting of such justices convened in the prescribed manner."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been in his place, the Government could not have seen their way to accept the Amendment. He (the Attorney General) thought if the Amendment was left as proposed it would not be doing justice either to the Lord Lieutenant or to the Justices of the Peace; he, therefore, could not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was perfectly plain that the Lord Lieutenant could not be able, of his own knowledge, to judge of every district in Ireland. It would be necessary for him to act upon the information supplied to him by responsible persons, and the Amendment provided that the responsible persons should be Justices of the Peace in the different districts which it was proposed to place under the Act. Possibly, if the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been present, he would be convinced by the arguments of the Government, and would be disposed to withdraw the Amendment; in his absence his Colleagues were not able to judge what his action would have been, and he would be compelled to take the sense of the Committee.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would not take the sense of the Committee by calling for a division. He did not think they should call upon a body of magistrates to come together to do something which the Lord Lieutenant 1184 could do very well from information received direct. He thought if the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been in his place, on a little reflection, he would not have moved the Amendment, and he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) hoped it would now be withdrawn.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he would join with the hon. Member who had just sat down (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) in his appeal to the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to allow it to be withdrawn, and not to go to a division. The Amendment was one upon which there existed some slight difference of opinion amongst the Irish Party themselves, and for that reason he urged its withdrawal. At the same time, he (Mr. Gray) would say that he had no kind of confidence in the magistrates of Ireland, whether they were acting in private or in public conclave; whether they were acting as private individuals or publicly as a body. As his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was not present to move his Amendment, and as he would have an opportunity of moving it on the Report, he merely made the suggestion to the hon. Member for the Queen's County not to divide upon it.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought if the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been present, he would have carried with him, not only the body of the Irish Members, as he generally did, but hon. Members from other parts of the House, whose judgment he would have swayed. As the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Gray) had said there was a division of opinion about the Amendment, he asked leave to withdraw it. At the same time, he thought anything more unfair, more ungenerous, or more unexpected than the course taken by the Government towards the remnant of the Irish Party could not be conceived. He thought that what was passing through the minds of hundreds of Irishmen was that they would like to have one cavalry charge to settle the whole matter. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. MOLLOY (for Mr. BIGGAR) moved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 6, after "thereof," to insert, "and shall be forthwith published in two newspapers circulating in such district."
1185§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was of opinion that the publication in two Dublin newspapers would be sufficient. He might also say that the Amendment would, in some cases, defeat its own object, because some districts were so small that two newspapers were not published in them. The Peace Preservation Act of 1881 contained a clause to the effect that the manner of proclamation should be left to the Executive, and he thought that much safer than to lay down a certain mode of carrying into effect the law.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANpointed out that they did not intend that the two papers in which it was proposed to insert the proclamation should be published in the district, but only that they should be circulated in the district. There were plenty of papers circulated in districts in which they were not published. They did not want to select certain papers, but would, leave that to the Government. He thought the Amendment was so fair that it ought to be accepted by the Government.
§ MR. SHEILthought there was nothing to prevent the Government making the proclamation in any manner they liked, and all the Irish Members asked was that the Government would make the proclamation in any two newspapers published in the district, or even in Ireland.
§ MR. MOLLOYwould ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to state how these proclamations were to be made known. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said they would be made known in The Gazette; but The Gazette was never seen in the country parts of Ireland. They suggested that the proclamation should be in two newspapers published in the district, and they did not mind what newspapers they were. They thought there ought to be some means of making these publications known to the people in the counties who would be affected by them. If the Government would say that the proclamation would be made known in two newspapers having a circulation in the Province in Ireland in which the proclamation took place, the Irish Members would be satisfied. If they were 1186 only to be published in the official Gazette, they might as well be published in the London Times.
§ MR. M'COANthought if they were published on the chapel doors of the district to which they applied that would be sufficient.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was the course that was already taken in many cases, and that was the course that would practically be adopted.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he could not see why the Government hesitated to accept that Amendment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would say any two papers in the district, or in Ireland, that would be sufficient for their purpose. What they wished to have was, that the form of the proclamation would be accessible to the neighbourhood, and to anybody in it. In The Dublin Gazette it would not be accessible. He had no doubt whatever that the Lord Lieutenant would have the proclamation posted on the chapel walls; they were not speaking of that, but they were speaking of what was actually provided for in the Bill. He thought his hon. Friends would be quite ready to accept the publication in two newspapers published in Ireland.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, he was sorry to be at issue with his hon. Friend behind him (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), who usually spoke with such clearness and force. He did not think that the publication in any two newspapers in Ireland would meet their purpose, as newspapers were published in one part of the country that were not seen in other parts. He thought the publication should be made in the same district to which the proclamation applied.
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, he would venture to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would make a great mistake if he did not accede to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy). He (Mr. Blake) was in a public office for 10 years in Ireland, and he ventured to say that in all mattert of the kind a notice inserted in the Dublin newspapers or in The Dublin Gazette would be of no avail in the districts to which the proclamation applied. He knew that it was also the practice of the Board of Works; but there were numerous counties in Ireland where The 1187 Dublin Gazette was never seen. As for the notices posted up at the police stations, he knew that there were many people in Ireland, who ought to be informed of these matters, who never had an opportunity of seeing the notices posted at police stations; whereas there were few people in a district who did not see the notices when they were inserted in the local papers. He was sure it would be to the interest of the Government to have matters of that kind as widely known as possible.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he would like to say a few words to relieve Her Majesty's Government from the imputation cast upon them by his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan). The hon. Member had said if the proclamation was made in papers published in one district, it would be of no use in another district; but there were papers that circulated all over Ireland, and he thought these should be chosen.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, all proclamations were inserted in The Dublin Gazette, and, in addition, great care was taken that they should be likely to meet the end in view. There was not the slightest reason to apprehend any difficulty in the case of this Act, as the promulgation of the proclamations was precisely the same under this Act as it was under all other Acts. There was naturally a desire on the part of the Government to let the people know what was illegal.
§ MR. GRAYasked, if he was to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said the procedure under this Act was the same as that laid down in the Act of 1870?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)I said 1881, the Act of last year.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, the Irish Law Officers had told them that the Act of 1870 was the model for this Act; perhaps they would say what were the arrangements under the Act of 1870 for the promulgation of proclamations.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 197: Majority 182.—(Div. List, No. 221.) [4.55 P.M.
1188§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that, as the clause now stood, there was insufficient provision for the promulgation of the warrant, and in that respect the Bill was much less minute than the Act of 1870. According to the clause, the proclamation of a district was to provide for the manner of the promulgation thereof, which really meant that the Lord Lieutenant would do what he pleased. It showed the progress the Government had made on the road to coercion in Ireland between 1870 and 1882. He invited the Prime Minister, who was responsible for the Act of 1870, to mark the advance that had been made on this particular subject.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that the result of the clause in its present form would be that a district would be proclaimed three or four days before the people were aware of it.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he mentioned incidentally, when the Committee were discussing the preceding Amendment, that, in his opinion, there should be a promulgation of the proceedings in two newspapers. That would suffice to insure an amount of publication that would meet the case; and he would trust to the Lord Lieutenant to select the proper newspapers. He thought there was a grave objection to the proposal that the Government should be under the necessity of proving that the newspapers in which a promulgation was inserted should circulate in the district.
§ MR. BYRNEthought it would be of the greatest assistance to the authorities to publish the promulgations as widely as they could, and he felt bound to oppose the passing of this clause.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 15: Majority 166.—(Div. List, No. 222.) [5.10 P.M.
§ Clause 21 (Supplemental provisions as to proclamations and orders).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask a question of a legal character. He desired to know whether 1189 the construction of the clause would make it necessary for the Lord Lieutenant to take the advice of the Privy Council, when he considered it desirable to alter or revoke any order made by him?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)replied that it would.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether, if the Lord Lieutenant had made an order against a public meeting, and had described it as illegal upon imperfect information, and found that there was a very short time before the meeting would be held, it was incumbent upon him to take the advice of the Privy Council when he found that the proclamation was unfairly made? He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would find there was a good deal in that point.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government would consider whether it would be advisable to strike out the words "or order."
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, a copy of each warrant was to be laid before Parliament, and he should be sorry to see the clause containing that provision rejected.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 22 (Regulations as to courts).
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved to strike out the clause, and said he should ask leave to introduce another clause in its place.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That Clause 22 be struck out of the Bill,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 23 (Rules of procedure in Schedule) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 24 (Allowances to judges, witnesses, and others).
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)rose to move, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 5, at beginning, to insert—
There shall tie paid out of the Consolidated Fund such allowances to judges, chairmen of counties, and.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, the Committee had now been engaged for 27 consecutive 1190 hours, and he felt he had reached a point of physical exhaustion when it would be impossible for him to continue to pay attention to the work of the Committee. There were also other important reasons why they should postpone the further consideration of the Bill. He was personally of opinion that the Committee could not wisely or quietly continue the discussion of its provisions. It was of great importance for the future of the measure that the people of Ireland should have some faith in the criticism to which the measure had been subjected, and in the absence of hon. Gentlemen who possessed, in an extraordinary and special degree, the confidence of the people of Ireland, he thought it most unwise to continue the discussion. The object of the measure, as he understood it, was to put down crime and outrage in Ireland. He held that the Committee had that day set the people of Ireland such an example of illegality—[Cries of "Order!"]
THE CHAIRMAN, interposing, said, the hon. Member (Mr. O'Kelly) must not discuss matters outside the question now before the Committee.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, he was speaking of Members of the Committee, and he held that an example had been set to the people of Ireland that day which was likely to—
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, he had very little more to say; in fact, he had said what he wished to say. His experience in that House was that the presentation of reasons by Irish Members had very little effect either upon that Committee or upon the House. [Cries of "Order!"] He regretted that as much, perhaps, as some of those Members who cried "Order!" because he thought it a bad thing for the future of his own country, and, perhaps, a bad thing for the future of Europe. He had been connected during the past few years with a Party who had made strong efforts to turn the attention of the people—[Cries of "Question!"]
§ MR. A. GREYasked whether the hon. Member (Mr. O'Kelly) was in Order?
THE CHAIRMANreplied that the hon. Member could not make a general speech upon a Motion to report Progress.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, he wag simply giving some reasons for the Motion he was about to make. He did not regard that Motion as simply a Motion to report Progress; but he intended it to be in the nature of a protest against the action of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMANremarked that the hon. Member was apparently trying to come into collision with the Chair. The hon. Member could not make a Motion to report Progress a Motion of protest against anything that had occurred, and he should ask him to be careful.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, he had no desire to come into collision with the Chair. Nothing was further from his view. He believed that in the course he had taken he was strictly within the Rules of the House; but as the Chairman had defined his position as one of defiance to the Chair, he immediately bowed to his ruling, and would simply conclude by moving that Progress be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. O'Kelly,)—put, and negatived.
§ The decision being challenged,
THR CHAIRMANstated that several utterances on the part of the Ayes came too late for him to take notice of them.
§ MR. GRAYbegged to move that the Chairman leave the Chair. He thought they had reached a point in the Bill in which it was quite impossible that hon. Members could take any useful part in the discussion of the Amendments. They had now reached a clause involving a very important principle, which they claimed the right, if they had the physical power left them, to discuss. He did not think the Committee would receive any observations they might make in a manner which would be at all hopeful. He himself had now been in the House 20 hours continuously, and he did not think it was their duty simply to exhaust nature to the last point, in order to gratify a Government which was using its majority to physically exhaust a small Party. He was only sorry that the Government had not announced their intention before that. If that was the determination of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, it would be more considerate if he would say so 1192 frankly to the Committee, and let them go about their own business. He (Mr. Gray) was determined to persevere in the present Motion, and protested against the Committee proceeding further at that present moment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Gray.)
TUE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it should be pointed out that to that clause no Amendment whatever had been placed upon the Paper, except the Amendments of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The fact was worthy of notice, for all the hon. Members from Ireland, carefully watching this Bill for weeks, with this clause before them, could not find one Amendment to put on the Paper. Now, however, he understood the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) to say that he could not give proper consideration to the clause.
§ MR. GRAYreplied, that the explanation of that was perfectly simple. There was no need of putting down Amendments, because it was the principle of the clause altogether to which they objected. He declined to enter into any discussion of it now.
§ MR. SHEILsaid, it seemed to him that if the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General held good as to that clause and other clauses, it would not hold good as to Clause 26, to which there were Amendments. He (Mr. Sheil) believed his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) would be satisfied if the Government would allow Progress to be reported on reaching Clause 26. [Cries of "No!"]
§ MR. O'SULLIVANobjected to the power of payment of the expenses of witnesses as likely to lead to bribery.
§ Question put.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, hon. Members must challenge the Motion so that their challenge should reach the Chair.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that, if that was so, he was under a misconception, and he would put the Question again.
§ Question again put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 176: Majority 165.—(Div. List, No. 223.) [5.40 P.M.
§
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 5, before the word "there," to insert the words—
There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund such allowances to judges, chairmen of counties, and.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. W. J. CORBETsaid, he was convinced of the necessity of bringing the Sitting to a close, and he would, therefore, move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. William Corbet.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 172: Majority 161.—(Div. List, No. 224.) [5.45 P.M.
§ Question again proposed.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Leahy.)
§ MR. M'COANsaid, he was as much opposed to that system of procedure as any man in the House; but he thought hon. Gentlemen behind him had done enough to meet the honour of the case. He would make an appeal to the Prime Minister, who was not yet committed to any pledge against what he (Mr. M'Coan) was now going to suggest. If Clause 30, which contained an important provision respecting the operation of the Bill, were suspended till a later stage—[Cries of "No!"]—he thought his hon. Friends would have no further excuse for Motions to report Progress.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he was sorry his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had made an appeal which he (Mr. Gray) foresaw the Government would not grant. His hon. Friend thought they had done sufficient for honour. He (Mr. Gray) really 1194 did not know if there was any particular question of honour involved; it was a question of duty. As to the means which could best be adopted to prevent the progress of a Bill to which they were all conscientiously opposed, they were novices; but if the Prime Minister would give them some of his experience gained in passing the Divorce Bill, or the President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary to the Treasury, would tell them how to go on, it would be an advantage. He (Mr. Gray) did not understand the procedure so well as those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, and Irish Members could only enter their protest in the rough-and ready manner which they had adopted.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he, contrary to his hon. Friend (Mr. Gray), was glad the appeal of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had been made, because it revealed the situation in all its nakedness. The Government had evidently made up its mind, and the Committee had made up its mind, to pass this Bill, right or wrong. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, he knew that very well, and that the hon. Member's appeal would be futile. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would not have condescended to make it himself; but he was glad it had been made. If the Government meant to pass the Bill as soon as it could, there were half-a-dozen of them who must do what they could, if only for the sake of the independence of Members of Parliament. ["Oh!"] Yes, there had been Members of Parliament who, under circumstances much less grave than those in which they stood, would have warned the Government that, if the House of Commons and the Government of the Crown were to pass measures subversive of liberty, the people had rights behind them all. It was in that House that Charles James Fox reminded the Coercion Ministry of his day that, if they attempted to pass a measure equal only to one small portion of the present Bill, they might pass the measure, but they could not deprive the people of the right to resist measures subversive of public liberty. But the days of Fox had gone, and the spirit which animated Members of Parliament then was gone too. Proposals were now made in this House which would have been scouted from the old House of Com- 1195 mons in the days of Pitt and Fox. If any man wanted to appreciate the descent that had been made, let him read the speeches made in the year 1795, when the Government proposed coercive measures, and then let them complain, if they could, of the conduct of the Irish Members. It was nothing like what it was then. Let the Government pass their Bill. They that were left could only stand in the gap as long as they could; and until they were swept out they would stand in the gap.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he regretted the Government's refusal to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan). They were a very small number; but, at the same time, they must do what they could to oppose this measure. It was a measure of the worst class of coercion which had been brought in for half-a-century, and they would not be doing their duty if they did not object to its passing.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 171: Majority 162.—(Div. List, No. 225.) [5.55 P.M.
§ Question again proposed.
§ MR. O'SULLIVAN moved that the Chairman report Progress. He did so on account of what took place in the earlier portion of the day, when he understood the Prime Minister said that if he saw a fair and reasonable amount of progress made, he would make a statement to the House as to what course he would pursue. After that, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what he considered a fair day's progress? Up to that point, they had passed six important clauses of a Bill which suspended trial by jury and levied a blood tax, and he should like to know upon what they could, or had a right to, speak more strongly than that Bill? When the right hon. Gentleman was asked how far he would go with the Bill that day, he said when he saw a sufficient amount of progress made he would make a statement as to what he would do; but now the right hon. Gentleman said the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, must be finished that night. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) had said he would ask his hon. Friends to withdraw all their Amendments to the Bill, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow Clause 30 to be 1196 adjourned; but, notwithstanding the assurance that he would be satisfied with a fair day's work being done, the right hon. Gentleman would not adjourn the clause, which was the last and the most important of them all.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
§ MR. LALORsaid, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) was trying to do what no one ever did, and what no man ever could do—and that was to confine the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to any statement that he had made—["Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) has cast an imputation upon a Member of this House, and he must withdraw the expression.
§ MR. LALORSo far as it concerns the honour of the right hon. Gentleman, I do; but, at the same time, I say it is a matter of fact—[Laughter, and cries of "Order!"]
THE CHAIRMANI must ask the hon. Member for Queen's County to withdraw the statement unconditionally.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI rise to Order.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI rise to Order.
§ MR. LALORIt is quite possible that you may have misunderstood me, Sir, I say, as a fact, the right hon. Gentleman never makes a statement that he does not leave a loophole through which he may escape, and in that way you cannot confine him.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has not withdrawn the expression; and if he does not do so, he is defying the authority of the Chair, and I must take other and necessary means.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 173: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 226.) [6.15 P.M.
1197§ Question again proposed.
§ MR. BYRNE moved that the Chairman leave the Chair. He made the Motion with very great reluctance; but he thought, after the conduct of the Government towards the Irish Members, he should be wanting in his duty if he did not protest, in the strongest manner, against the action of the Government. It appeared to him that the passing of a Bill was of no account to the Government, so long as they did pass it, whether it touched the lives and liberties of the Irish people or not. They ought not thus to attempt to rush it through, and it was in the belief that their conduct was unjust and unfair that he made the Motion he did.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Byrne.)
§ MR. HENEAGErose to Order, and asked if the time had not arrived for the Chairman to take action? And he wished also to put this question—Whether, considering the systematic manner in which these Motions were being made, and the language that accompanied them, it did not amount to absolute Obstruction and nothing else?
THE CHAIRMANIn answer to the appeal made to me, I must caution hon. Members who are making these dilatory Motions that they are pursuing the same course which drew upon other Members the displeasure of the Committee in an earlier portion of the day.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he saw no analogy between the two cases. He was warmly in accord with the Motion, and he should support it, and any further number of them, as a protest against the Government in endeavouring by physical force to compel the Committee to pass a Bill within a certain number of hours. What they had to consider was whether they were justified in their course of action. He did not expect to be justified in the opinion of the Committee; but, without meaning any disrespect, the Irish Members did look for justification elsewhere. They felt in their own hearts and their own consciences that they were taking a right and proper course, and they must bear the censure that hon. Members thought fit to pass upon their conduct. He was rather inclined to believe that the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Ministry had not failed to 1198 show his opposition to Bills objectionable to him by making dilatory Motions, and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) had adopted the same course as a protest against a particular Bill deemed by him to be of a mischievous character. They (the Irish Members) deemed this Bill to be of a mischievous nature; but, up to the present, no dilatory tactics, as the Chairman styled them, had been adopted by moving alternate Motions to report Progress, and that the Chairman leave the Chair, from that side of the House, and all that had been done was not accompanied by anything that could be called by the name of Obstruction. ["Oh, oh!"] Certainly, the discussion had proceeded without the Motions that were now being made, and he thought rightly and properly made, until they found that the Government had come down and got a large number of Members suspended from the service of the House—of course, after the ruling of the Chair, he did not intend to discuss that matter, as he meant to keep within the Rules of the House—but when they found the Government, by relays of Members, had come to a fixed determination upon the matter; when they knew there was no object in so acting, excepting the triumph of defeating nine men—on which they might be congratulated bye-and-by—when they knew that no advantage to the Public Service was to be attained, because the Government had already announced their intention of introducing Rules of Urgency on Monday; when they found that the Prime Minister, at an earlier part of the morning of the second day they had been kept there, had held out hopes to them that there would be an adjournment, it did not matter what arguments were used against them, but he said they were perfectly justified in the course they had adopted. They were justified in saying, now they had reached a contentious clause of the Bill, that although a small majority—["Minority!"]—he hoped hon. Members would pardon him; but he had now been in the House continuously for 22 hours—they were justified in saying the Committee had gone far enough, and if the Committee denied them their rights, then the odium would fall upon those men who sought to stifle free speech.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the Chairman had intimated that he should 1199 have to caution hon. Members against a repetition of the conduct which had led to the suspension of other Members; but he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not know what conduct had led to that penalty, as he himself had seen nothing.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must not discuss the question of the suspension of the Members this morning.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he knew he must not, and that was the reason he was not going to do so; but he meant to say he had seen nothing in their conduct.—["Order!"] If hon. Members would quietly listen they would hear what he had to say. He did not see anything in the conduct of hon. Members to incur the pains and penalties of suspension, and, therefore, he was not in a position to appreciate the significance of the caution just given to him. If he was told to learn by their example, he should certainly like to be told what they had done. He understood they had been expelled because they had offered resistance to this Bill. [Cries of "Obstruction!"] He was not disturbed by cries of "Obstruction," and he should do what he thought fit in the matter, whatever might happen. Of course, the Irish Members had opposed the provisions of the Bill; but they had not done so more than the English Members would have done, if such a Bill had been directed against their own countrymen. The opposition had been nothing like the opposition which the Government quietly put up with from another section of the House over the Hares and Rabbits Bill of a previous Session. In many of the Sittings upon that Bill, there was not a clause taken in an entire evening; whilst now, the Committee had passed a number of most significant clauses. The Irish Members had not offered anything like an unfair opposition to the Bill. The Government evidently meant to pass the Bill at this Sitting, in spite of their protests and reasoning; and, if so, it remained for them to make such a stand as they could, and to have recourse to all the Forms of the House. No doubt, that course might exasperate certain hon. Gentlemen. Well, they must be exasperated; that was all. The Irish Party were exasperated, too, at seeing the liberties of their countrymen trodden down and trampled under foot. There- 1200 fore, they took the only course that was open to them, and they entrenched themselves behind the Forms of the House. The Government might propose their suspension, and they could be thrown out. Therefore, if the Government wanted to save time, let them do that at once; but while they had the power to resist they were determined that the Government should not pass the Bill until there had been a full and fair discussion of the clauses, and they could not do that as the Committee was at present constituted, because the men who had studied it most closely were not present, and, consequently, it was not possible to obtain a very effective criticism of the Bill, the numbers present being exhausted, and not enjoying the qualifications possessed by their absent Colleagues. It was not fair that the Committee should go on with the consideration of the Bill; but as that had been stated over and over again, he would suggest to his hon. Friends that it was not worth repeating. At the same time, if his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Byrne) went to a division, on their return from the division, if no one else repeated the Motion, he (Mr. O'Connor) would, whatever might be the consequences. He was aware that the House could do a great deal. It might suspend him, or send him to the Tower; and he must say that the only consideration that weighed with him was the leniency of the treatment the House had extended. That leniency was painful. If there were some serious penalty attached, a Member might not care about offending, but the penalty was so slight and so ephemeral, that it did not require any great amount of courage to submit. He had no wish to incur suspension; but he would go on with his opposition to the Bill as long as he possibly could, and the Committee could take what course it chose.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 175: Majority 167.—(Div. List, No. 227.) [6.35 P.M.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not know what the words were; but they related to a clause under which the Committee were asked to vote a sum of money; and if there was one thing the 1201 House of Commons ought to treat with deliberation and care, it was a question relating to the public purse. The Bill which was of a character that he need not describe, depended upon this clause for its being carried into effect; and if he could defeat the clause, he would be able to defeat the Bill. The Irish Members strongly objected to the clause, and believed they had a right to demand that it should not be considered until the Committee was re-established in its integrity, and until those hon. Members whose absence they deplored, and from whose absence they suffered, were able to be present and give sound advice. Under these circumstances, he moved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked if the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was in Order in moving to report Progress? He (Colonel Kingscote) thought the Committee would go with him, when he said that it was trifling with the Committee to make such Motions continually.
THE CHAIRMANThe Chairman is only the exponent of the wishes of the Committee, and I have waited to see whether the Committee entertain the same view that I do. The Question is that I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (remaining seated and covered)I understand, Sir, that your ruling is a vindication of my conduct, and that I am entitled to make the Motion?
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 169: Majority 161.—(Div. List, No. 228.) [6.55 P.M.
§ MR. O'KELLYI move that the Chairman leave the Chair. I do so as a protest, perhaps the final protest, that we shall be able to make against the passage of this measure. The clause on which the Motion is made affects a vital principle of the Bill; and, in fact, if it were left out, the Bill would be unworkable. It is for that reason that we have put down no Amendments to the clause. We believe that this and the 1202 other clauses destroy the liberty of our countrymen, and every right that free men are in the habit of holding dear. With the Bill, Constitutional liberty will come to an end in Ireland, and I, for one, am resolved not to be a party any longer to the farce of passing such a measure. This Bill is not merely a legislative act; it is an act of war on Ireland and her people. Its consequence will probably be very unfortunate. We have no longer power to resist its passage, or to make other Constitutional efforts in this House to modify the measure and lessen the evil effects that we fear must spring from it. The disappearance from this House of the ablest men of our Party has, so to speak, taken away the right arm on which Ireland is wont to depend for the defence of her liberty. We are here merely as a maimed Party, and we can no longer offer an effective resistance. Under those circumstances, I consider it my duty to oppose, to the utmost of my power, the further progress of this measure in Committee.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)
§ SIR HUSSEY VIVIANI think that the Committee must feel that the time has fully come when this, which I would almost call a farce, should be brought to a close. These repeated Motions for reporting Progress, and that the Chairman leave the Chair, are simply intended to delay the transaction of Business. No one doubts it; in fact, hon. Members who take that course avow it openly. Under those circumstances, it will not be denied that their action comes within the Standing Order of this House, which prohibits such a course being pursued. I, therefore, most earnestly appeal to the Leader of the House not to allow this state of things to continue in absolute opposition to and disregard of the Standing Order, and that he will take such measures as are necessary to re-establish the dignity and Order of the House.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSMr. Playfair, whilst agreeing with the general tenour of the remarks of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian), I think that there is one matter on which correction is necessary. According to the Standing Orders of this House, the responsibility of taking 1203 action does not rest with the Leader of the House, but with the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. On the general question, I am bound to say that the action taken by the hon. Members who have spoken from below the Gangway has certainly most severely tried the patience of the Committee; and it must be evident to everyone, by their own admission, that it has been taken for the purpose of obstructing the further progress of Business. However, it is a question for the Chairman, and no one else, to judge of the feeling of the Committee and the action that should be taken.
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) has stated the Law of the House on this subject with perfect accuracy. At the same time, as an appeal has been made to me, although I have no duty of taking the initiative in the matter, I think that it is my duty to answer the appeal, and at least give my opinion. I am bound to say that I cannot for a moment entertain a doubt as to the application of the Standing Order to the case before us. It is to be remembered that the Standing Order is broad in its construction. It provides for the case of disregard to the authority of the Chair, and it entirely provides for the case of abusing the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful obstruction of Business—that is, of turning to account the unbounded license and general process of the Rules of the House for the purpose of enabling a minority to place its own will in the place of that of a majority, and thereby, with full knowledge and continued perseverance, to obstruct wilfully and persistently the Business of the House. It is, therefore, unnecessary to be warm on this subject. I take it that it is a question of the true construction of language, and I would almost be content to appeal to the hon. Gentlemen who voted in the minority in this case to say whether it is not fair to allege that, from the point of view of the majority, such a use of the Rules of the House for such a purpose was abusing the Privileges of the House?
THE CHAIRMANI think it now my duty to Name Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil, as having abused the Eules of the House by per- 1204 sistent and wilful Obstruction of the Business of the Committee.
MR. GLADSTONEThis is the point at which the initiative of Her Majesty's Government comes into operation, and it is my duty to move that the Gentlemen named be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the said Resolution to the House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair.
§ MR. PLAYFAIRreported to Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil, had been severally Named by him to the Committee for having abused the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful obstruction of the Business of the Committee; and that the Committee had resolved that Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's Sitting.
§ MR. SPEAKERforthwith put the Question to the House, "That Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 7: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 229.) [7.15 P.M.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Then Mr. SPEAKER directed Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil to withdraw, and they withdrew accordingly.
1205§ The Entry on the Votes is as follows:—
§ Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil having been severally Named by the Chairman for having abused the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful obstruction of the business of the Committee:—
§ Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to report the said Resolution to the House.
§ Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair, and Mr. Playfair reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil, had been severally Named by him to the Committee for having abused the Rules of the House by persistent and wilful obstruction of the business of the Committee; and that the Committee had resolved that Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting:
§ Mr. Speaker forthwith put the Question to the House, "That Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting: "—The House divided; Ayes 128, Noes 7.
§ Then Mr. Speaker directed Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Gray, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. O'Sullivan, and Mr. Sheil to withdraw, and they withdrew accordingly.
§ Then the House again resolved itself into the Committee on the Bill.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Question, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair,"—(Mr. O'Kelly,)—put, and negatived.
§ Amendment, in page 12, line 5, at beginning, insert "there shall be paid out 1206 of the Consolidated Fund such allowances to judges, chairmen of counties, and,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)—put, and agreed to.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved, in page 12, line 6, to leave out the words "judges and."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 6, leave out "judges and."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there omitted."
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that he was not going to express any opinion as to what had taken place; but it was quite obvious that with, so many Irish Members absent, it would be perfectly impossible for them to carry on, with any degree of intelligence or equality, the discussion upon the remainder of the Amendments. Therefore, he did not intend to delay for a single moment the passing of the Bill, either by word or vote, although he believed it was an excessive measure and far beyond the necessities of the case. He had voted for the whole of the Amendments which had been moved from that side of the House, but was not conscious of having given one single obstructive vote. He did not now, however, propose to discuss the Bill any further, for he felt that, so far as his small voice was concerned, it would be useless to offer any further resistance. He would leave the whole responsibility in the matter to the Government.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, that he equally felt, considering the present state of the Irish Benches, that it would be idle—if indeed it would not be a sheer waste of time—to drag the Members of the Committee any more through the Division Lobbies with the object of showing formal opposition. Therefore, so far as he was concerned, and he thought he might speak also for the few hon. Members from Ireland sitting near him, he should cause no further delay by taking any part in the discussion of the proceedings.
§ Amendment agreed to; words omitted accordingly.
§ On Motion of Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, further Amendment made in page 12, line 9, after "expenses of," insert "persons charged, counsel, and."
1207§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ On Motion of Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Clause 25 (Rules for procedure and matters to be prescribed), struck out of the Bill.
§ Clause 26 (Powers of Act to be cumulative).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he had intended to move some Amendments which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He suggested that, as now a large number of the Irish Members were suspended, it would be exceedingly graceful on the part of the Home Secretary if he accepted the Amendments that stood in their names. On one of them—
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that he had already proposed the clause to the Committee, and no Amendment could be put.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, in that case, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the Amendments on Report.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, if they had some time ago taken the course suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), no doubt they should have facilitated considerably the passage of the Bill. He bad no objection to accept one of the Amendments, that the words "more than once" should be substituted for "should not be twice punished for the same offence."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 27 (Definition of "unlawful associations").
§ On Motion of Mr. GIBSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 12, line 33, leave out "or carrying on operations;" and in line 34, at end, add "carrying on operations for or by the commission of crimes or."
§
MR. LABOUCHERE (for Mr. REDMOND) moved to omit the following subsection of the clause:—
And the expression 'crime' for the purposes of this section means any offence against
1208
this Act, and also any crime punishable on indictment by imprisonment with hard labour, or by any greater punishment.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThen I move it.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 35, to leave out from "crimes" to end of clause.—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the Government could not possibly accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 28 (General definitions).
§
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—
In page 13, line 2, at end of line insert as a separate paragraph:—"The expression 'county' includes a county of a city and a county of a town and city and county; the expression 'Attorney General' includes in the case of any vacancy or inability to act the Solicitor General.
§ And in lines 24 and 25, leave out "police magistrate within," and insert "divisional justice of."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 29 (Short title) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 30 (Duration of Act).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he had an Amendment on the Paper to the clause, his desire being to reduce the period of the operation of the Act to two years, and also to provide that in no case should the Act continue in force beyond 21 days after the first Sitting for the transaction of Business of any Parliament subsequent to the present Parliament. He did not, however, intend to press the Amendment if the Government said that they could not accept it; 1209 neither would he divide upon the clause. He, moreover, wished it to be distinctly understood that there were several hon. Gentlemen in the House who did not give their assent to the clause, but who refrained from dividing upon it in order to save the time of the Committee.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that he agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). There never was a Coercion Bill of the extent of the present measure, or that was proposed for so long a period. They were asked to give these powers for three years, and, in this respect, the Bill was without precedent. He was bound to say that if when the Bill came up for Report their powers of speech were not taken away from them by the passage of the Urgency Resolution, he would feel it his duty to move an Amendment similar to that of the hon. Member for Northampton.
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, that he thought it was incumbent upon them, though few in number, not to let the clause pass in its present objectionable form without challenging a division. He thought it a most monstrous thing to propose to apply the Act for three years. Although he admitted that, in the present state of Ireland, the Government were justified in bringing in a measure of this character, he could not approve of it in its entirety, and he especially believed that a period of 12 months would be sufficient for its operation.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTIt is quite true that the period is longer than is usually taken; but it is for the first time that we have had to deal with persons who do not act in good faith to Parliaments. That is one of the main grounds that we have put this period into the Bill. In former times, when you had men who acted honestly and in good faith towards the House of Commons, you could properly, and with a regard to the public interest, review each year the necessity of a measure of that description. Unhappily, we find ourselves in totally different circumstances. The experience of to-day, and this Session, shows that there are persons whose object is to discuss measures not upon their merits, but having another object—to paralyze the action of Parliament, and bring the House of Commons into disgrace. That being a pew and totally different state of things, 1210 we have not thought it right to propose a period which would involve Parliament in an immediate reconsideration of the question. At the same time, I would wish the House to understand that it is not in contemplation that there should be a necessity—I hope there may not be—for keeping this Act in operation throughout the whole of Ireland, or in any great part of Ireland. Hon. Members must observe that the most stringent and most obnoxious provisions of the Bill depend upon the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant. They apply only in proclaimed districts. In any other district of Ireland which is restored to peace and tranquillity, the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant will be withdrawn, and, practically speaking, the operation of the Bill will immediately come to an end. Therefore, it should not go forth that this is a Bill of three years' duration which will necessarily apply for that period over the whole of Ireland. It is not so. It will apply to no part of Ireland any longer than in the wisdom of the Executive Government it is absolutely necessary.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that he quite appreciated the statement that the Bill was only to be of partial operation, for there might be something in it; but, notwithstanding that fact, he thought three years an extraordinarily long period, and he asked whether to reduce the period would not be a proper concession to make to those who had not obstructed the Bill, but took the same view that he did?
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that it was an extraordinary statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that this Bill, which was to entirely suspend Constitutional liberty in Ireland, was made applicable for three years in consequence of the disorganization of the House of Commons.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, interposing, said, that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) had given too wide an interpretation to his remarks. He (Sir William Harcourt) was anxious that it should be understood that the measure was justified by the existing state of things in Ireland, and the Government believed that no less a period than three years was necessary for it to eradicate the evils which, owing to pernicious teaching, had pervaded in that unhappy country.
MR. JOSEPH COWENThe point I wish to draw attention to is that the Bill is to be continued for three years, in consequence of the disorganized condition of Parliament.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 6: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 230.) [7.50 P.M.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir William Harcourt,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
§ House adjourned at Eight o'clock, p.m. on Saturday till Monday next.