§ "Men of Historic Clare and Ireland."
§ "This is to give you due and public notice that Pautch Cunningham, Turnpike, Ennis (father doing business for Bannatyne, Cross Road of Mills); this low-bred fellow is giving his cars this long time with impunity to the peelers to attend evictions, etc., in the County of Clare; also to King Clifford Lloyd, of Cromwellian descent, to drive him and his breed of hired assassins throughout the entire county. This Pautch Cunningham is, by all accounts, of rotten lineage, as every one of his breed in the town of Ennis are villains. For instance, 'Curse of Christ' Matty is uncle, and the rest of his gang of bailiffs are blood relations of his. Anybody, no matter whom he may be, in the town of Ennis or elsewhere, after reading or hearing of this public warning, who supplies cars to such parties, I swear by Parnell, Davitt, and Dillon, and the rest of the patriots that are pining in English dungeons, they shall die the death of Bailey, the informer of Dublin. Furthermore, no matter whom he may be that gives his cars for similar purposes in the future the same fate awaits him, if it was in ten years to come, to avenge the principal and grand 1696 object in view for the exaltation of the honest and patriotic people of Ireland."
§ COLONEL NOLANI wish to ask the Home Secretary whether that appears in a Conservative newspaper?
SIR, WILLIAM HARCOURTWhat does that signify? The notice continues—
Also not forgetting the low, hungry robber and degraded blackguard Maurice Quinlian, Cross of Clare Road, who is supplying cars to the enemy since the very start of the agitation, in defiance of the general wishes of the people. This low scoundrel drives himself to every eviction with an air of independence; and his brother Tom gives support to the peelers….. his horses on every occasion that arises for further coercion and persecution of our down-trodden country.&.. With regard to this renegade, some Land Leaguer will die the death of a traitor for entering and supporting his houses. Groves, another smart Orangeman, who has supplied his cars repeatedly, will be similarly dealt with.By Order,—Captain MOONLIGHT.Men of Clare to the rescue.God save Ireland.He thought he had now answered the challenge of the hon. Member opposite by reading a passage from an Irish newspaper. It mattered not whether the newspaper were Conservative or Liberal. A newspaper that published such an article as that ought to be suppressed, and Her Majesty's Government were now asking Parliament for the power to seize such a publication. He would give another reference to the same newspaper. When the woman who published it was called upon to give an undertaking to publish nothing of the same or similar character she gave that undertaking, but afterwards withdrew it on the statement that other newspapers in Ireland were doing the same thing. Here was a newspaper inciting to the assassination of men for no other offence than that of supplying cars which they had for hire, because it did not suit the views of "Captain Moonlight" that they should do so. It was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to arm the Irish Executive with the power of dealing with such publications.
§ MR. O'SHEAthought language of the kind quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman could be dealt with under Clause 4 of the Bill. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that these words were printed in The Clare Journal. That paper was a Conservative organ of the highest respectability; it was a paper to which 1697 he himself, in the ordinary course of business, subscribed, though pressure of affairs prevented his giving it all the attention it deserved. The proclamation was evidently given as an ordinary piece of news. He should be glad to hear from the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether such language, under whatever circumstances it might be published, could not be dealt with under the 4th clause of the Bill.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, with regard to the 4th clause of the Bill, it would, in his opinion, be a very insufficient remedy to send the person who published a newspaper to prison for six months, and allow the publication of the newspaper to continue. The object was not only to punish individuals, it was to prevent pestilent and poisonous matter being circulated throughout the length and breadth of Ireland.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, if the legislation for the Press was to be based on such extreme cases in Ireland, he would be glad to know why the same legislation should not be extended to England. A few nights ago, he had quoted in that House passages of a character so abominable that he believed hon. Members were shocked by the reference which he had felt it his duty to make to them. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, it appeared, took no notice of things of this kind published in England. In order to strengthen his case, he had to go to The Clare Journal, and furnish a solitary extract from that paper; and it was upon that he asked the House to destroy the liberty of the Press in Ireland. Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not proceed against publications in England which advocated the overthrow of the Queen and the destruction of society at large—that told people there was no use in assassinating a single Monarch, Ruler, or statesman; that they must make a clean sweep of them—sharpen their knives and strengthen their arms, and drive their weapons through the hearts of their foes? This was no invention. It was only a few nights ago that he had the publication to which he referred in his hands, and he had it still in his possession. Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not put the law in force against some of the atrocious publications which appeared in this country from day to 1698 day? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, upon a single copy of a placard appearing in a Clare newspaper, now came forward to ask the House of Commons to sweep away the liberty of the Press in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the other day, compared this Bill to a fire engine to put out the fire burning in Ireland; but, by a clause of this kind, he would put out, not the fire, but the lamps which gave some glimmer of light in the darkness of that country. The result of this atrocious measure would have the effect of producing silence and darkness in Ireland; and this, it would seem, was the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman desired to bring about. He had already prevented platforms being brought into requisition, and now he sought to prevent the Press in Ireland speaking to the people, and guiding and instructing them. Every day that passed over their heads they were confronted with the consequences which followed this baneful and oppressive legislation in Ireland; and in the face of those things, the warnings he had received, and the plain results which had followed the attempts to stifle the voice of the people, the right hon. and learned Gentleman came forward with new attempts upon the Press of the country. It was useless to protest in that House against tyranny of that kind; but Irish Members would always denounce it. The people of this country might not pay attention to their denunciations; but the Irish people would, and so would their kindred in America, who were watching the present proceedings attentively, and did not mean to forget them.
§ COLONEL NOLANpointed out that the only way in which a Conservative newspaper could be supported in Ireland was by advertisements given by the agents and land-owning families who subscribed to it. In this particular instance, it was really the upper classes who were responsible for the conduct of the newspapers. In legislating for matters of this kind, where a gentle remedy could be used, it was a great mistake to adopt a violent and unusual one. In the case in question, the practical remedy would have been for some of the gentlemen who subscribed to the paper to have remonstrated with the editor, and to have intimated that they would cease to 1699 be subscribers; but to say that the whole of the Press of Ireland was to be manacled, because a Conservative paper printed such an extraordinary article, was really going too far. Common sense would tell them at the present moment the attitude the Conservative Party had taken up on the agitation in Ireland. But it did not matter whether these things were published in a Conservative paper or not, no one in authority seemed to raise any objection. It was possible that objectionable articles might be published in other newspapers; but even if they were, it would be a strong measure to take to stop the mouth of the whole of the Press in consequence. In the case of The Dublin Daily Express, when they took into consideration the class of people that supported the paper, it surely was hardly fair for the Secretary of State for the Home Deportment to quote the case against the whole of the Irish Press.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Government with regard to a Bill down for consideration, that night—namely, the Settlement and Removal Law Amendment Bill. That was a measure considered by Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House as of very great importance. They had not blocked it, for the simple reason that they did not wish to interfere with the progress of Government Business—they did not want to offer a factious opposition to it. The second reading of the Bill ought not to be taken at an unreasonable hour. [Cries of "Order!"] Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that he was out of Order in referring to another Bill in Committee upon the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill; therefore he would move to report Progress. It was a strange thing that no one could ever speak on that side of the House without being received with interruptions by the other side. He desired, in the most respectful way, to appeal to the Government to allow Progress now to be reported, in order that the Bill to which he was referring could be brought on—or he wished to receive a pledge from them that the measure would not be taken that night. No one on the Conservative side wished to obstruct the Bill. His own constituents, and, no doubt, the constituents of many other hon. Members, were very deeply interested in the matters dealt with in the Bill; 1700 and he would, therefore, pro formâ, move to report Progress, in order that the Government could consider the point he had raised, and, if they thought it desirable, allow the Settlement and Removal Bill to come on. The debate on the present clause of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill appeared to be one which was hardly likely to come to a speedy termination.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government had been making great exertions and great sacrifices, and so, also, it was only fair to say, had the Opposition, in order to make progress with the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill. There seemed to be a disposition on the part of the Committee to go on with the measure, and to make some further progress with it that night; and he, therefore, sincerely trusted that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would not persist in his Motion to report Progress. The debate on the present Amendment had been very exhaustive, and he thought that a division might very soon be taken upon it.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not think his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) wished to stop the discussion upon the Amendment before the Committee. All he desired was to elicit a promise from the Government that the other Bill would not be taken that evening.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government never had the remotest intention of proceeding with the second reading of the Settlement and Removal Bill that evening, and why the hon. Member should have thought they had he could not understand. The same question might be asked with regard to any Bill, and it was a most unusual thing to interrupt the progress of one measure in order to ascertain what wa3 likely to be done with another.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he really did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had any right to lecture him upon the matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might lecture hon. Members on his own 1701 side of the House; but that was no reason why he should venture to do the same to hon. Members who sat opposite to him. There was no reason why the Settlement and Removal Bill should not be brought forward that evening. There was no Amendment to it; it was not blocked; and he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) only feared that it might be the intention of the Government to smuggle it through the House without debate, if possible.
SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSAre we to understand that the Settlement and Removal Bill will not be taken tonight?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI have always understood that when a Member of this House once makes a promise he is not expected to repeat it.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThe right hon. and learned Gentleman did not make a promise in the first instance; but now that he has done so, I beg to withdraw the Motion for reporting Progress.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he hoped it was not too late to make an observation upon this matter. Ho was in favour of the Motion to report Progress for, he thought, a much better reason than that advanced by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken—namely, for the reason that the Irish Members, who had taken an active part in advancing Amendments to and in the discussion of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, had made as many sacrifices in the interest of Public Business as the Government or the Conservative Opposition, and to do their duty they would have to be in the House again at 2 o'clock the next day at the Morning Sitting. Under the circumstances, it was surely a reasonable thing that Progress should be reported, seeing that it was now nearly half-past 1. During the time he had been in the House he had always consistently opposed any attempt to continue any discussion on grave public questions at an unreasonably late hour. Well, this was an unreasonably late hour. The clause of th6 Bill they were on was a very important one, and, without any reference at all to the Notice of the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) near him, he trusted that the Motion to report Pro- 1702 gress would be adhered to, and that the Government would agree to it. This question as to the liberty of the Press in Ireland was one that could not be disposed of that night. He set the highest value on the concessions the Government had already made in striking out so many sub-sections of the clause. It seemed to him to show a very good spirit on their part, and to that spirit, so far as he was concerned, he would very gladly respond; but, at the same time, he thought they had reached such a late hour on a matter of such importance that it was highly desirable that Progress should be reported.
§ MR. RAIKEShoped the Committee would allow the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff; to withdraw his Motion, as it had only been made for the purpose of eliciting some statement from the Government with regard to another Bill. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had made the required statement in a very fair way, and, the purpose of his hon. Friend having been entirely met, he trusted he would now be allowed to withdraw his Motion. So far as he (Mr. Raikes) was concerned, he could not see why this question of the liberty of the Press in Ireland could not be discussed for at least another hour. Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House were not anxious to interfere with the progress of this Bill through Committee.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that with reference to the observations that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) he (Mr. Trevelyan) had watched the progress of this discussion with the greatest interest, and had noticed that so representative a Member on this question as the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) appeared to think that, now the Government Amendments were on the Paper, his principal objections were removed, and that the fears of other hon. Members as to the objectionable character of the clause were removed. The clause, as it stood, simply gave the Lord Lieutenant a power that he had practically been exercising for the past year or 18 months. He (Mr. Trevelyan) could not help thinking that the discussion on the question as to whether that power should be put into this Bill had proceeded, at any rate to a satisfactory length, and he 1703 earnestly trusted that the Committee would permit them now to add the clause to the Bill. He must admit that he thought that hitherto the progress which had been made with the Bill had not quite answered to the number of nights which had been spent upon it. If the Government could get this clause they would gladly accede to the wish of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), and agree that Progress should be reported.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, ho never yet had seen a Minister of the Crown who had anything to do with the progress of a measure through that House satisfied that the advance of that measure was proportionate to the amount of time devoted to it; and he did not know why the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be an exception to the general rule. He (Mr. Parnell) agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) that they ought not to be called upon to vote away the liberty of the Press in Ireland in a single hour. Though it was true that the Amendments of the right hon, and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department did away with a great many of the objections the Irish Members felt to that clause, still this was, no doubt, a section of the Bill which, even in its shortened condition, retaining only the 1st sub-section, gave enormous powers to the Executive in Ireland over the freedom of the Press in that country; in fact, it practically put newspaper editors at the mercy of the Executive authorities. The Lord Lieutenant practically had power now to seize newspapers that he considered objectionable, and there was no way in which newspaper proprietors could prevent the exercise of that power, because it would rest upon a newspaper proprietor to bring an action against the authorities, and everyone must know that it would be impossible for a journalist in Ireland to obtain a verdict from a jury that would be empannelled on such a case, party feeling running so high. As to the other clauses—Clauses 1 and 4—the Government had taken ample, nay, more than ample power to deal penally with editors of newspapers, and they had made out no case why this additional power that they sought should be granted. It was true the Secretary of State for the Home 1704 Department had attempted, for the first time on this Bill, to justify the provisions in question—for the first time he had given them an example. Undoubtedly the right hon. and learned Gentleman had selected his example most unfortunately, because he had chosen to refer to something which had appeared in a Conservative paper, a landlord journal, in the County of Clare. In this case, the offence of "Boycotting" was illustrated, and what was the intention with which this Conservative paper had published a "Boycotting" notice? It was to show what a heinous institution the Irish National Land League was when such a notice could be issued apparently in its name. Such was the example the right hon. and learned Gentleman was content to select as a justification for the demand he made for this extra power. He (Mr. Parnell) would challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to select a single passage from any popular newspaper in Ireland upon which charges of this description could be founded. He (Mr. Parnell) knew, as a matter of fact, that no popular newspaper during the whole of last winter dared publish such an extract as that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to. If any popular journal had done so, the editor would have been arrested under the Coercion Act by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and sent to Kilmainham. On the contrary, Irish popular journals during the past six or seven months had been exceedingly careful with regard to the original matter they admitted into their columns, He would call on the Secretary of State for the Home Department to give any passage from United Ireland newspaper—which had been seized in innumerable instances last winter—upon which such a charge as that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made against a Conservative paper could be founded. Why was not the editor of that Conservative journal, from which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had read an extract, arrested under the Coercion Act? Simply because the newspaper was Conservative, and because the object of that incitement to assassination by the editor of that journal was for the purpose of running down the Land League and showing up its work. The suggestion he (Mr. Parnell) would make as to this question of Progress would 1705 be this. He believed the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment did not intend seriously to press it. In that case, let the Committee go on with the discussion upon the Amendments before them until they came to a point upon which there was a serious difference of opinion. When that serious difference arose then let them report Progress.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he quite ad mitted that the principal objection he had to the clause would be removed by the Amendments the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had given Notice of. At the same time, he was far from being enamoured of the clause, even as it would stand. It would place the Press in Ireland under the power of the Lord Lieutenant. However, hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to feel such a strong objection to the clause now that it was to be amended. [Cries of "No, no!"] At any rate, a great deal of the objectionable character of the clause had been removed; and, seeing that that was the case, he was 'willing to withdraw his Amendment, if it was the pleasure of the Committee that it should be withdrawn. He thought it was desirable that they should come to a decision upon the clause that night.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it seemed to be the impression of the Government that because they had put ballast in their ship, which they could throw out at any moment to suit the winds, therefore hon. Members must agree with them. Surely they could not expect to pass the clause as it stood. They had put things into it, for the purpose of taking them out, and he should like to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a few questions with regard to this power of seizure. Would the Lord Lieutenant order such a paper as The Glasgow Herald to be seized, when sent over to Ireland; Town Talk, Bradlaugh's journal, and immoral journals generally? Would these papers be liable to seizure? There were a number of journals that he, for his own part, should be happy to lay an information against if he thought it would conduce to their seizure. He did not see why an offence against morality should not be as objectionable to the Secretary of State for the Home Department as anything else. 1706 Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not maintain that temporal affairs were of more importance than spiritual. A prosecution had been instituted against Town Talk, and most people knew the character of that journal. Would he allow such a publication as that to circulate in Ireland?
§ Main Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 33: Majority 110.—(Div. List, No. 156.)
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that if his Amendment which stands next on the Paper is negatived, a similar Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) cannot be put, as it contains the same matter substantially. I do not know, therefore, whether the hon. Member intends to proceed with his Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork goes more into detail than that of the hon. Member for Sligo.
§ MR. SEXTONIn that case I will withdraw my Amendment.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would move an Amendment with the object of providing that where a newspaper was seized, the editor, or other person responsible for the publication, might know what the objectionable matter was, and so might prevent its re-publication in subsequent issues.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 20, at end, to add, "In every case where copies of a newspaper are seized the order directing the seizure shall specify the matter objected to."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had no objection to the Lord Lieutenant, in taking so strong a measure as seizing a newspaper, setting forth the reasons in the order of seizure.
§ MR. GIBSONthought it necessary that the Committee and the Government should realize what would be the effect of the Amendment if it was accepted. If it was put in the Bill, it had better be worth something; but if the clause was altered, as this Amendment proposed, it would be impossible to work it. The sub-section of the clause only enabled 1707 the Executive to seize a particular issue of a newspaper; but if the Lord Lieutenant, before he seized a newspaper which was printed and turned out complete, was to have before him the whole of the printed matter, and introduce it into the warrant, the paper would be circulated throughout the land before the Government stopped it.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdid not understand that the statement of the reasons was to be precedent to a seizure. The seizure would take place, and then, afterwards, the parties affected would have supplied to them, under the clause, a copy of the order of the Lord Lieutenant directing such seizure, and specifying the matter in such newspaper which appeared to the Lord Lieutenant to be calculated to incite to treason or any act of violence. The Lord Lieutenant might make up his mind to seize a newspaper, on the ground of certain passages which it contained; and he (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) conceived it would be sufficient, when the Lord Lieutenant made up his mind, that he should cut out the passages necessary to the seizure, and specify them as the ground of the seizure. The seizure must be due to certain passages. The Amendment provided that—
In every case where copies of a newspaper are seized, the order directing the seizure shall specify the matter objected to.Therefore, if the Lord Lieutenant had made up his mind to seize a newspaper, he must have made up his mind as to the objectionable passages therein, and must have seen the newspaper. That was the practice at present; the Lord Lieutenant seized the newspaper, and specified the grounds. No doubt, this was an imperfect provision; but it was one which the Irish Government believed to be of practical utility, for they could, under this provision, practically control the Press. That being so, he thought that when the Lord Lieutenant saw a newspaper, he made up his mind as to the passages upon which it should be seized, and ought to give to everybody affected a statement of the passages which had led to the seizure.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he had listened with great attention to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he would only make this criticism upon what he had said—that part of the Press which 1708 he considered it of the first importance to deal with was the Foreign Press—copies of newspapers coming from America, pouring out nothing but the most dangerous matter that could be conceived for a country like Ireland, in its present state. If the Amendment was applied to the whole clause, it would not apply to those terrible publications from America in the same way as to those in Dublin. The Irish Government would be apprised, by telegram or otherwise, that The Irish World, or some other American paper, contained in a particular impression a lot of treasonable matter. If an order could not be issued to seize such a paper, without the passages being quoted, it would be impossible to prevent the circulation of papers which would do the greatest harm. He would suggest that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should consider whether it would not be desirable to put in some words excluding from this Amendment papers brought from abroad.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, an instruction was once given to a reviewer to cut the leaves of a book and then smell the paper knife, and that was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) seemed to wish to have done with regard to Irish newspapers, it would suffice for the Lord Lieutenant to smell treason in them without reading them at all. He was really astonished to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman, representing such a centre of enlightenment as Trinity College, Dublin, recommending such a mode of treating the Press. Surely it was not too much to ask that the Lord Lieutenant, before ordering the suppression of a newspaper, should himself see what it contained, and form his own opinion as to the character of the contents. If he concluded that the matter was either treasonable, seditious, or intimidating, it would not take him very long to have the objectionable passages copied; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin required that the Lord Lieutenant should not wait at all, although it would not take him more than three minutes to select from the paper the objectionable passages and put them into the warrant. It was really too bad that even the 1709 safeguard given by the Amendment, requiring that the Lord Lieutenant should read the papers himself, and form his own opinion, should, it was suggested, be refused. It was not very much of a safeguard; but even that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the seat of learning in Dublin, where it might be supposed some regard would be had for enlightenment and education, proposed should not be allowed.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought the Government appeared to be accepting this Amendment rather hastily, and without sufficient consideration; and there was one point he should like to understand. He presumed the object of the Government was to stop the circulation of papers containing mischievous notices throughout the land; and if, in that case, they were compelled to cite the objectionable passages to enable them to suppress the newspapers, would they not be publishing precisely what they wished to suppress? Or was a private communication to be given to the newspapers? If it was to be provided that the paper was to be stopped by the objectionable passages being cited, surely that was giving publicity to the very passages it was desired to suppress. He would suggest to the Government that they should let this matter stand over to the Report, and see in what way they could meet the question, which was, no doubt, worthy of consideration, and with which, he thought, they were acting rather hastily in accepting the Amendment.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) would apply to any publication, because to set out any passages in the newspaper objected to obtained for those very passages publicity. That was the objection to the prosecution of The Freiheit. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to see what the Amendment provided, and how it bore upon the clause. The only power in the clause was—
Any copy of such newspaper, appears to the Lord Lieutenant to contain matter inciting to the commission of treason," &c.The Lord Lieutenant must, therefore, be cognizant of the newspaper before he could act; and the only question was one of how he was to set out the matter. There was some difficulty in imposing 1710 the duty of setting out the whole of the matter before the seizure. He thought the Lord Lieutenant ought to state, some time or other, what it was that had led to the seizure. Therefore, if the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would agree not to make that statement a condition of the seizure, but that the statement should follow immediately on the seizure, and afterwards be accessible to the parties who were subject to the seizure, he would accept this Amendment, not as a precedent for procedure, but only as a statement of the grounds of the seizure, in order that the people concerned might learn those grounds. If the hon. Gentleman would accept that modification of the Amendment, he thought it would be better to defer the consideration of it. With that view, he would be willing to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. O'KELLYthought the Government ought to give an assurance that when a Conservative newspaper published any matter, which, if published in a national newspaper, would form a ground of prosecution, the same action should be taken as against the National paper. What had been the case in the last year? Some of the passages quoted in that House as the strongest evidence against liberty of the Press in Ireland were published in a Conservative paper in Ireland. In this matter there ought to be something like even-handed justice, and the Government ought, at least, to give an assurance that they would act in the same way in regard to a Conservative paper as to a National paper.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, whenever he had seen any of these passages in a Conservative paper, they had been accompanied by editorial condemnations. That was a very different thing from publishing those passages with expressions of approval, as was often done.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry to say that he could not accept the suggestion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because one of his objects was to provide that the Lord Lieutenant should have seen a newspaper before he ordered its seizure, and examined the objectionable passages. He wished to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee that the reason put forward by the Front Opposition Bench to induce the 1711 right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a change in the Amendment was that it might be inconvenient for the Government in dealing with foreign newspapers, which might get into the country and be circulated, if they had no opportunity of seeing and seizing them. He thought it so desirable that proper precautions should be taken with regard to Irish newspapers—that was to say, that there should be no risk in their case—that he would suggest that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman desired, on Report, to introduce some special provision to meet the case raised with regard to foreign newspapers, that would be very fair. But he did think that it would be desirable to require that the Lord Lieutenant should have seen a newspaper before seizing it. There was no practical inconvenience in this course, because the newspaper could not be circulated through Dublin without the Lord Lieutenant having an ample opportunity of seeing it. With regard to country newspapers, their circulation was very limited; but the Lord Lieutenant would be able to get information by telegram as to any contents which might be objectionable. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would allow the Amendment to pass as it was; and then, before Report, they might consider what modification should be introduced to meet the objection as to foreign papers. After the Government had admitted the principle of the Amendment, he thought it was only fair that they should introduce the sub-section into the Bill; and then, on Report, it would be permissible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to propose any modification.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, ho had listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) with great interest, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was evidently going through the same process as he (Mr. Trevelyan) himself had gone through some weeks ago upon a question with regard to which he had made some particular inquiries. When he first went to Dublin, he did not understand the process by which a single issue of a newspaper enabled the Government to obtain such a hold over the more dangerous ebullitions from the Press; but when he saw how the work was 1712 done he understood it quite well; and, in regard to newspapers in Ireland, he was perfectly satisfied that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) might be adopted with perfect security. The form of the seizure order would run in this way—"Whereas a newspaper, entitled so-and-so, and dated so-and-so, appears to us to contain, in a passage therein, commencing with the word so-and-so, and ending with the word so-and-so, matter inciting to violence or intimidation. Now, we hereby order all copies of the said newspaper to be seized, and we authorize you to seize the same accordingly." It was quite obvious that that was as short an order as could be given to an Executive officer. With regard to newspapers published abroad, he realized the difficulty referred to; but as the Government recognized the principle of the Amendment with regard to Irish newspapers, and as they had engaged to deal with the difficulty raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin as to papers published abroad, he thought the principle might be embodied in the clause now, and any modification left for Report.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, after what his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) had said, he hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would postpone his Amendment until Report. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would be taken as bearing upon home newspapers, and, by Report, they would have an opportunity of considering what form would be required to deal with foreign newspapers.
§ MR. PARNELLunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to adopt substantially the provision contained in his (Mr. Parnell's) sub-section with regard to home newspapers, reserving to himself the right to bring up, on Report, a special provision with regard to foreign newspapers. Upon that understanding, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would like to move, pro formâ, an Amendment, providing that in case of seizure the person who executed the seizure should 1713 take with him a copy of the order authorizing the seizure. He could understand it would be, perhaps, inconvenient to present the order in cases where papers were seized from street vendors; but he thought that, in the case of tradesmen who sold papers over their counters, the constables making the seizure should be required to show that they had legal authority.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the hon. Gentleman to let the proposed Amendment stand over until Report. It was very proper that the person interested ought to be furnished with information as to the ground on which the seizure had been made; but what limitations should be put upon that required some consideration. In principle, the ground on which the seizure was made ought to be accessible; but he would like time to consider how the thing should be carried out.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would defer the matter for Report, and he would also defer until Report the introduction of a third sub-section he had to propose to the clause.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would now move the Amendment which stood in his name, which practically amounted to the omission of Subsections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, from the clause.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words from the word "Where," in line 21, page 5, to the word "unincorporated' in line 9, page 6.—[Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that, of course, the omission of these sub-sections very materially weakened the power of the Government to deal with the Press. The clause, as originally framed, gave the Lord Lieutenant, in the first instance, power to seize and stop any particular newspaper; and subsequently, if he had reason to believe that the paper was altogether objectionable, he had power to deal with the paper by way of forfeiture. The Government now thought it unnecessary to proceed with the latter part of the clause. So far as papers published in Ireland were concerned, he (Sir Stafford 1714 Northcote) had no wish to say anything to challenge their discretion in the matter; but he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider whether the same measure ought to be applied to foreign newspapers as he proposed to apply to Irish newspapers. He thought that in the event of its appearing that some particular newspaper, published abroad, and regularly forwarded to this country and to Ireland, was incorrigibly bad, and was continually publishing mischievous and dangerous matter, it was worthy of consideration whether power should not be reserved to the Government to stop the circulation of that paper in England or in Ireland? He did not ask for an answer at that moment; but he thought the question was one which deserved consideration, and which, perhaps, the Government would consider before the Report of the Bill.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) had been very carefully considered. The right hon. Gentleman, however, would observe that the sections it was proposed to omit never could have applied to foreign newspapers. He (Sir William Harcourt) would like to say, in a few words, why the Government abandoned these sections. When the Government proposed to have caution-money, they had great difficulty in knowing what to do with the recognizances when they were forfeited. The ordinary way of dealing with recognizances would have been to refer them to a jury; but he had already said that that would be of no avail. What were they to do upon the question of determining whether a paper, having given caution-money, had not forfeited its recognizances? The Government felt that there was a very great difficulty in referring Press questions to the Judges; and in considering whether the determination of the question should be left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, they felt very strongly the objections which were urged to the making of the Lord Lieutenant the Judge upon the forfeiture of recognizances. These were the grounds which induced the Government to abandon these sections, coupled with the fact that the Irish Government had found the power which they were prac- 1715 tically exercising at present was sufficient to deal with the matter.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department need not have apologized for the omission of these sections. The Irish Members only wished he would go a little further and strike out the whole clause.
§ Question put, and negatived; words struck out accordingly.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 26: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that before the Motion was put he would like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the Committee had now waited more than a week, and they had not yet seen the clauses which the Government proposed to bring up with relation to combinations and associations.
§ SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had put the clauses on the Paper that night. Hon. Gentlemen would see them to-morrow.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.