§ Clause 11 (Searches for arms and illegal documents).
§ MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, the Amendment he had to propose was not upon the Paper, and he would therefore read it to the Committee. He proposed to insert the words in line 11 making it necessary to fill up the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant to search for arms and illegal documents with the names of the suspected persons, the names of the occupiers of the houses, and the hour at which the search was to be made. He hoped the Government would consent to accept the Amendment, because he believed it was strictly in accordance with the principle the Committee had laid down in regard to the Bill. He understood the Bill was to be carried out, as far as possible, in accordance with Constitutional principles. The Act of last year was founded on unconstitutional principles—namely, that an English subject might be arrested on the mere suspicion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and detained without being brought up for trial. This Bill, however, was to be carried out as much as 1807 possible in accordance with Constitutional principles; and although trial by jury was taken away by the Bill, it was, to a certain extent, restored by providing another tribunal. It was quite true that an accused person was not to be tried by 12 jurors; but, at the same time, he was to be tried by six Judges, who were practically equivalent to an ordinary jury. In this particular case the accused was to be tried by two stipendiary magistrates, one of whom was to be a lawyer. That was a course which was not unknown to the English law, and, to a certain extent, it was carrying out the law of England. At the same time, if they proposed to carry out the law of England in this way, they ought also to carry it out in accordance with the principles on which that law was established; and, so far as he understood, it had never been the practice in England to issue blank warrants. Such warrants might have been resorted to in times gone by; but so strong was the feeling against them that the House of Commons itself had protested, and the Judges, in the most solemn manner, had decided that the issue of blank warrants was altogether illegal. Instead of permitting the issue of blank warrants in this case, he proposed that the Lord Lieutenant, in issuing a warrant for search, should specify into whose house, and at what hour, the search was to be made. By that means something would be done towards guarding the sanctity of the home. Nothing had been more insisted upon in English history than that an Englishman's house should be his castle. It was to carry out that principle that the Amendment was brought in. He would not say that there were not times and occasions when the Executive of the country might be called upon to violate the sanctity of a man's home. The Criminal Law offered instances when such a necessity arose; but it was the duty of the Government to provide that there should be no abuse of the power. If the Committee refused this Amendment, they would leave open to the Government a very wide field of abuse. It must be borne in mind that the Bill might not always be carried out under the guidance of Lord Spencer, a Nobleman whom they all respected, or of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was a man anxious to conduct the government of that country, as far 1808 as he was concerned, fairly and properly. He thought the Committee ought not to deprive the people of Ireland of their Constitutional rights without the strongest necessity being shown, and ample power being given, to restrain the exercise of the power of the Executive in cases where the public safety was not in danger. He trusted that the Government would insert this Amendment in the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 11, to insert after the word "warrant," the words "specifying the name or names of such inspectors, the house or houses, with the name or names of the occupiers thereof, where such search is to he made, together with the day and hours of the day or night on which, and within which, such search is to be made."—(Mr. T. C. Thompson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. T. C. Thompson) would forgive him if he declined to enter into the general discussion which ho had raised. The object of the clause was distinct from that which was inserted in the Act of 1870. Its object was to give to certain persons—the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary, for the time being, acting in any Constabulary district— the power of search for, and seizing, in any proclaimed district, or any part thereof, specified in the warrant, arms, ammunition, paper, documents, instruments, or articles suspected to be used, or intended to be used, in connection with any secret society, or secret association, for criminal purposes. It was not the general power to search for arms, but only a specific power to search for arms in connection with secret societies and criminal associations. "What the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) asked was this—that every warrant should be filled up with the names of the suspected persons, of the occupier of the house, and the hour at which the search was to be made. How could the Lord Lieutenant, in issuing his warrant, know the particular houses in which the documents or arms proposed to be searched for were secreted? [Derisive cheers from the Irish Members.] He hoped hon. Members would not misunderstand the object of the Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: A blank warrant.] It was nothing of the kind. 1809 Its only object was to give power to search any districts which were suspected for arms and other things, and it was desirable that that power should be exercised wherever such articles could be found. It was to protect a district from connection with the possession of unlawful arms, and with criminal associations, that the clause was proposed to be inserted in the Bill. This was an Amendment to the entire clause, and not to a particular part of it. Substantially the first requirement would be fulfilled; but it would be impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to specify the names of the occupiers of the houses. It would be impossible, also, that the Lord Lieutenant could give directions as to what time the search should be made. It might be reasonable, in the opinion of some hon. Members, to strike out the clause altogether, if they were of opinion that it was not desirable to detect these criminal purposes; but it would be ridiculous to retain it and to accept the proposed Amendment.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, that the only object of the Amendment was to try to get the Government to confine the warrants to places or persons who were reasonably suspected; but, as the clause now stood, the warrant would be as described by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), a perfectly blank warrant, under which the police could search the house of any person in a particular county, and the object of the Amendment was to prevent an abuse of the powers conferred by the clause upon the police.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had accurately described the Amendment as an objection to the entire clause. It raised a question of very considerable importance—namely, whether the right of search by general warrant should be exercised in Ireland. All the principles of liberty were outraged by the Bill. By what means was this clause to be carried out? It was to be enforced by the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of the Constabulary. If the right were limited to the County Inspectors they were only some 30 in number, and they were mostly men of experience and discretion, and he should not object to the clause if it were so limited; but the Sub-Inspectors numbered some hundreds, 1810 many of them being mere boys, and a very few were men of experience in the Service. They comprised among them such men as Sub-Inspector Smith and Sub-Inspector Ball, of Ballina notoriety, and Sub-Inspector Webb.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was discussing a question which would arise upon the next Amendment, and not upon the Amendment then before the Committee.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he would at once close his arguments upon that point. The search warrant was to be a general warrant to remain in force for three months, and during all that time this general warrant might be made use of as an instrument of torture, and for the purpose of private revenge. The Sub-Inspectors were not generally on very good terms with the inhabitants, and in many parts of the country there were strong feelings of resentment and private pique entertained by them against the people. Was it necessary, for the purpose of discovering concealed arms, that a subordinate officer of the police should have in his possession a document for three months which would enable him to enter the house of any person, and conduct a search which would be regarded by the Irish people as an insulting search? The Government had referred to no figures in regard to this clause. They had given no figures with reference to the exercise of the power of search by night under the previous Act. They had abstained from giving the figures as to the number of strangers who had been arrested; but he thought it was most desirable, before the Committee were called upon to accept the clause, that some statistics should be set forth. They wanted to know whether this was a well-tried and proved weapon for detecting crime. A similar power existed in the Act of 1870, and he should like to know what the effect of the exercise of that power had been? How was the right exercised? How many searches were carried out, and what were the results? The Committee ought to be made acquainted with the total number of searches, and the total number of cases which had justified them. His contention was that this right to search had proved altogether inoperative in Ireland, and that arms and papers of the description specified were not generally concealed, and that, 1811 if they were concealed, they were not concealed in dwelling-houses, or in places likely to be searched. If the police had a power of divination, this general right of search for the existence of secret societies might be of value, and, perhaps, in some of the Irish bogs they might discover something; but, not possessing that attribute, all this was a matter "of sound and fury signifying nothing." It could have no other effect than to annoy and harass innocent people. He was glad the Amendment had been moved by an English Member, because he hoped that that fact would insure it greater attention from English Members generally than if it had been moved by a Member representing an Irish constituency. Before the Government insisted upon retaining the clause, he called upon them to show the necessity for it, and to prove that the exercise of similar power in past times had led to the slightest result.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had no doubt this was a very stringent clause, and was not astonished that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), entertaining the views he did, took exception to it. But, in the state of things in Ireland, criminals obtained such an advantage over the law that it was absolutely necessary to give the Government exceptional power for enforcing the law. Secret crime in Ireland had reached such an extent as to fully warrant the Government in asking for a power of search; but he thought the policeman making the search should be bound to make some record of the grounds upon which he made it, otherwise this clause might be liable to be abused.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, no clause of exceptional severity against the Irish people had ever been introduced into the House that some hon. Member was not ready to declare he saw the full necessity of. That was the raison d'être, in the view of the Government, for the Bill. Personally, he could not see that this provision was more necessary than any other portion of the Bill. Therefore, when he heard an hon. Member talk of the necessity of the Bill, he was inclined to think that that argument was growing somewhat stale. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was not aware that the Government already possessed in Ireland very exten- 1812 sive powers of search between sunrise and sunset. They had power to do what they liked in that respect. He wished to know if they proposed to repeal the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act? What was the present demand of the Government? Did they suppose that when the sun set a man removed from a bog, or any other hiding-place, his blunderbuss, and brought it into his own house for the purpose of taking it to bed with him? The Government had already the same power of searching a house in the day time as they now asked for, and the same power of searching at night. People often read in romantic sketches of arms being taken out of the bog, or out of the graveyard; but the only object for removing them in a case like this would be to bring them to the fireside to air. Nothing could be more absurd, and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) must be aware that the Government possessed all the powers of search they now asked for. The provision contained in the Peace Preservation Act lasted for five years, and the Government only asked for this for three. Why should they not propose it for six years, and spare themselves from any further extra trouble? It was astonishing how the Government always presumed on the ignorance of hon. Members in regard to anything connected with Ireland. The Act to which he had referred was called the Peace Preservation Act; but what peace it had preserved had always been an enigma to him. Most Members of the House of Commons spent their time gloriously downstairs, or anywhere except upon the floor of the House; and, as the English newspapers were in a conspiracy to burke the speeches of Irish Members, he was not astonished that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy should be ignorant of the existing state of things, and that the Irish Members should be compelled to repeat the arguments they had used over and over again upon this matter. He did not suppose, however, that they would produce very much effect or influence upon the Government; but whether that was due to a want of intelligence on the part of the Government or upon the part of Irish Members he would not pronounce an opinion. The provision of the Act of last year was that where the warrant was addressed to a Sub-Inspector it must be addressed to a 1813 particular individual, and must be used within 10 days. As the Bill was brought in a blank was left in the warrant, so that the Sub-Inspector might use it at any time, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill consented to limit the period to 10 days. If the arguments, then, used were sufficient to shorten the duration of the warrant from all eternity to 10 days, he did not see why the Government should not now consent to shorten the period in this instance. Why should a Sub-Inspector have three months for harassing an entire district? No doubt the Sub-Inspectors of Ireland were treated as if they were the sweetness and light of the country, and he had not the smallest desire to object to that view; indeed, he had very little doubt that if Mr. Clifford Lloyd were closely examined, it would be found that he possessed angel's wings floating out behind. Therefore, it was too much to ask that an entire district should not be given over to the ransacking of an Inspector at any hour of the day or night. In the last Bill the Government inserted a provision that arms should be paid for if they were given up, and they got more arms in consequence of that provision than from any other power conferred by the Act. They had instituted searches of the most stringent and even disgraceful character. They had pulled down the hay-stacks of the unfortunate peasants and scattered them to the winds, and let rain come down upon them; but not one stand of arms, nor one pound of gunpowder, nor one paper of percussion caps had they succeeded in discovering. He, therefore, claimed that under this Bill something in the nature of compensation should be given for injuries that might be inflicted in carrying out an abortive search.
THE CHAIRMANwished to point out to the hon. Member that he was scarcely speaking to the Amendment before the Committee, but to the effect of the clause generally.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was simply pointing out that a better way of obtaining arms and ammunition than the Government proposed would be found in providing compensation for the giving up of arms; but he would not continue in that strain if the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that he was out of Order. What he wished to say was, 1814 that in future these general warrants would be as ineffectual as they had been in the past. They had hitherto been used for the purpose of giving the people living in the district as much trouble as possible. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was known to be a humane man. He (Mr. Healy) had no authority to speak for hon. Members on that side of the House; but, as far as he was personally concerned, he was prepared to say that the right hon. Gentleman had afforded the greatest amount of satisfaction in his new Office. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would very greatly regret that cases should be brought under his notice such as those which were constantly referred to the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—cases in which houses had been burst open by the Sub-Inspectors, women pulled out of their beds, and obliged to dress themselves in the presence of five or six policemen, and then turned out of the room while the constables ransacked the premises. He could not understand why the resources of civilization should not have been kept back so as to enable those unfortunate women to dress, unless there was some fear that they might personally secrete something in the few moments the police might be kept out of the room. The Act was carried out in such an extremely objectionable manner, that in very numerous instances these poor women, after being expelled from their beds, were compelled to dress themselves in the presence of four or five constables. When such things occurred in a district, it was not a matter of surprise that they should excite a feeling of passion and hatred. It was this system of searching that had provoked reprisals in Ireland; and he asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would be willing to put into the Bill a Compensation Clause, such as that as was put in the last Bill, to compensate all persons who voluntarily surrendered the arms they possessed? At present the state of the case was this. A man's bed might be ripped up, the boards of his dwelling-house pulled to pieces, his mantelpiece knocked down, his hay-rick scattered to the winds, and other damage done; and what he wanted to know was, whether in such a case, the search having failed to discover concealed arms or ammunition, the owner of the property 1815 who had sustained injury would be compensated?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must again point out to the hon. Member that he was speaking upon the general clause, and not upon the Amendment.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that, unfortunately, these things followed from an unrestricted right of search. He was only pointing out one of the consequences of passing this clause, and if he was not to argue in this way there was no use in his arguing at all. Therefore, he would resume his seat.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, no matter had given so much dissatisfaction in connection with previous Coercion Acts as the exercise of this right of search. If it could be shown that it was of advantage, and that there was an absolute necessity for it, ho should have nothing to say; but he did not think that in this case the Government had made out a case sufficient to warrant the Committee in assenting to this very objectionable provision. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had stated, better than he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was able to do, the objections which wore raised to the exercise of this power in Ireland, and he would ask the Government if it was worth while to increase the ill-feeling of the people against their measures by adopting so arbitrary a provision? During the late Winter Assizes in Ireland, they had had some experience of the manner in which arms could be easily got away and put away in Ireland. The concealment of arms was, in point of fact, reduced to a system. A man did not take home a double-barrelled gun and hide it in his house; but men, many of whom had been formerly in Her Majesty's Service, were employed under "Moonlight" arrangements to convert them into "Moonlight" arms; and instead of having a firearm hidden away in its integrity, these men, who possessed a technical knowledge, took them to pieces, and a lock would be disposed of in one place, a barrel in another, and a stock in another. He, therefore, failed to see what advantage the Government would derive from this clause; and it would, undoubtedly, tend to inflame the bad feeling and the bad passions of the people against the Government. He had already expressed his opinion as to the desirability of passing some such measure as 1816 the present; but, at the same time, he felt that the Government, in asking for this clause, were asking for one that was quite unnecessary, and were asking for a power which would excite the bitterest feeling of hostility against themselves in Ireland.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he concurred with the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), that this clause would be regarded as a very odious one in Ireland; and he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) would be a very useful one indeed in restricting this right of search and placing it under some sort of rule. He might give an example as to how the right already existing had been used under the old Coercion Act. A tenant of his complained that his house had been searched. The tenant said he did not complain of the police searching it, provided they found anything in it; but he did complain that they held the power of searching it again and again, and asked him (Colonel Nolan) to interfere. He called the attention of the late Conservative Chief Secretary to the matter; and the argument he used was that, although something might be found if the search were conducted in the course of six months, it was not likely that anything would be discovered upon premises which were searched once a-week. In this particular instance the search was stopped. He was afraid that if the clause were passed as it now stood, and warrants were issued in the general way, the officer entrusted with the execution of them might employ the right of search as a means of molestation against an individual in regard to whom he had some private pique. If the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr T. C. Thompson) was introduced, the Lord Lieutenant would only grant a warrant when a necessity for it was shown, and there would be an essential control over the exercise of it, and there would be not nearly so much chance of the right being abused.
§ MR. GILLsaid, he strongly supported the Amendment. There was one subject to which no hon. Member had at present alluded. When this right of searching for arms and other matters was enforced in Ireland, it had always been known that that was the time in 1817 which spies and informers had been enabled to carry on with the greatest success their machinations. His own opinion was that the exact hour of the search should be named in the warrant; if not, it would give to this class of spies and informers in Ireland the opportunity of concealing arms or other things about the house of a man, and of then going to the Sub-Inspector and saying—"Such and such a man is concealing arms in a haystack, or in a barn, or in a corner of his house, and if you go at once you will discover them." A Sub-Inspector, armed with this terrible power, would go at once, and naturally would discover these things, the result of which would be that the unfortunate victim, although thoroughly innocent, would be subjected to severe punishment; while the spy, or the man who bore malice against the unfortunate victim, would remain unharmed, and even obtain a reward for his treachery. If the clause were safeguarded by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) this could scarely happen, because it would be necessary for the Sub-Inspector to obtain the insertion in the warrant of a particular hour for the search; and that might be made the means, to a large extent, of baffling a common informer who wished to carry out his own scheme of treachery. For that reason, if for no other, bethought the Amendment ought to be insisted upon.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he thought that before the Attorney General committed the Government to the clause he should have endeavoured to show that the already extensive powers which were given under the Act of 1881 had failed, and, if so, in what respect they had failed. As had already been pointed out, searches of a stringent character had been made under that Bill; and in some cases precautions of such an extraordinary character had been taken that it was utterly and completely impossible that any arms, if concealed in the houses which were searched, could have escaped discovery. The power of search had been exercised under the most favourable conditions; but, nevertheless, the Government had failed in the most signal manner to obtain the possession of concealed arms. What did that prove? That they had searched the houses of a good many people, and in almost the whole of them no arms were found at 1818 all. As had been pointed out, a Compensation Clause was placed in the last Bill for arms that were given up, and the result was that a large number of arms was surrendered under that clause, whereas scarcely any were discovered where the right of search was exercised. The Attorney General said that the present clause gave no general power to search at all, but only to search for particular arms and documents, &c, connected with secret associations. He wished to see how that would work. A district would be proclaimed, the Lord Lieutenant would send his warrant down to the Sub-Inspector of the district; and under that warrant the Sub-Inspector would be able to search every house in the county, not merely for arms, but for any documents which might be used in connection with criminal associations. But how was he to discover whether any letters or documents he came across did not come under the category unless he read every document that might be found in the man's house? Therefore, it was manifest that this a most unlimited power given to the police, which was to last for three months, and the right of search to be repeated day after day, at any hour of the day or night. The effect would be that every farmer in a proclaimed district would be completely at the mercy of the Police Inspector. The hon. Member for West-meath (Mr. Gill) had pointed out another important matter — namely, that very frequently in Ireland, when laws of this character were brought into operation, a man possessing a feeling of hostility to his neighbour placed in the thatch of his neighbour's house something which would bring him under the provisions of the Act, and then communicate it to the police. The consequence had been that, on more than one occasion, an innocent man had been sent to gaol for concealing arms, the existence of which he was in entire ignorance. Supposing, under this clause, a Constabulary officer received a general warrant, and an anonymous letter was forwarded to him, stating that in a particular house firearms were concealed, he would be bound, even though he did not know from whom the anonymous letter came, to act upon it, and search for the arms and documents pointed out. It would, therefore, be in the power of any man who chose to conceal arms in the thatch of a neighbour's house, or in the hay-stacks of his hay- 1819 yard, to bring the whole force of the law down upon him, and to cause an innocent man to be sent to gaol for three months under the Arms Act. He, therefore, thought it was absolutely necessary to insist on the warrant specifying the house that was to be searched, so as to afford some guarantee that before a search was made there was some reasonable ground for suspecting that arms were concealed.
§ And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
§ The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
§ The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 31; Noes 61: Majority 30. — (Div. List, No. 159.)
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 11, after the word "time," insert "on information on oath and in writing being laid before him by some creditable person."'—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. SEXTONrose to speak.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member had risen too late, the Question had been put to the Committee, and he thought the Noes had it. ["No, no!"]
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to Order. Several Amendments had been handed in to the Clerk at the Table just before the rising of the House. These Amendments had been distributed amongst Members, but not in order, and the consequence of that had been that he had not been prepared to move his Amendment at the proper moment.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the point was that the last Amendment on which the Committee divided was moved after the word "warrant," and the Amendment of the hon. Member was after the word "time," which had been passed by the Committee. It was extremely difficult for the Chairman or the Clerks at the Table to deal with a large number of Amendments simultaneously handed in. He had, however, discovered that the Amendment of the hon. Member could not be put for the reason stated.
§ MR. HEALYasked, with regard to the Amendments handed in to the Clerk at the Table, when hon. Members would have an opportunity of moving them? Ho had himself handed in several Amendments just before 7 o'clock, and it was then a quarter-past 9.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had pointed out that the division on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) had carried the Committee down to the word "warrant." The hon. Member had now moved an Amendment after the word "time," which was not then before the Committee, and it could not, therefore, be put. He, therefore, called upon the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to proceed with the next Amendment.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANrose to Order.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. O'Donnell.)
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, although he believed the Lord Lieutenant took the advice of the Privy Council with reference to all warrants, yet he was anxious that the form of the warrant should be prescribed. The Amendment which he was about to move was one intended to carry out the Act; and, therefore, he presumed that the Government would not object to it.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 11, after the word "warrant," insert "in the prescribed form."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had no objection to those words.
§ MR. O'DONNELLrose to Order.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo had been put, the hon. Member for Dungarvan could put his question to Order.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
1821§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had risen to a point of Order, before any other Member had risen, on the ordinary conduct of the Committee. Although the hon. Member for Sligo had been called, he (Mr. O'Donnell) had risen first. The question he wished to ask was, whether his Motion for Progress did not justly take precedence of the ordinary conduct of the Committee?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had called on the hon. Member for Sligo, and saw him rise; he was, therefore, in possession of the Committee at the time the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) moved to report Progress.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if he could now move the Amendment, which the Chairman had been unable to put to the Committee, with regard to information on oath and in writing being laid before the Lord Lieutenant?
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the object of his Amendment was to guard, as far as possible, the use of the power contained in this clause, and to limit it to cases where the Lord Lieutenant had proper information before him for the purpose of taking this extreme action.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 11, after the word "form," insert "on information on oath and in writing being laid before him by some creditable person."— (Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was unable to accept this Amendment. He wished, however, with the indulgence of the Committee, to state the intention of Her Majesty's Government with reference to an important point in the clause. He was aware that the present was not the stage of the Bill at which the statement should be made, yet he desired to make it at that stage, because it might affect the discussion upon the remaining portion of the clause. It had been thought necessary to ask for power for making searches in given districts, and without limiting them to any particular hours. But the Government were aware that there was the keenest feeling with regard to this clause as to search by night; and, although they were not prepared to give it up, they were prepared to limit it in such a manner as would 1822 insure that there should be no search at night except where there was reasonable suspicion that a secret society was holding a meeting, and to move an Amendment to this effect later on.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought that the Prime Minister had made a most reasonable concession. He could quite understand the Prime Minister taking the power of search in the case of a secret society which was holding a meeting. Although, of course, he could not support this Act, still he was prepared to admit that if such an Act had to be passed it was perfectly fair that the power reserved by the Prime Minister should be taken. He repeated that this was a most important concession on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he quite agreed that the concession of the Prime Minister was a most important one, and begged to offer the right hon. Gentleman his sincere thanks. Still, there was one question which he desired to put. Supposing that the police proceeded to make a search, having entered the place, would the police be enabled to withdraw if there were no meeting sitting?
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he thought it necessary to refer to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), which sought to impose on the Lord Lieutenant the necessity of receiving information on oath before he granted the warrant of search. The Prime Minister said it was intended that this right of search should not be exercised in the night-time unless there was reasonable suspicion that a treasonable meeting was being held. He (Mr. Leamy) asked on whose determination was that search to be made? Were the Committee to understand that a general warrant would be issued to an Inspector of Constabulary in the district, telling him that he was not to make this search in the night-time, unless he had some reason to believe that a treasonable meeting was being held in a certain house, and that treasonable documents or arms would be found there? He did not underrate the concession of the Prime Minister; but he felt it his duty to ask what guarantee Irish Members had that a Sub-Inspector, armed with a warrant of search, would 1823 not proceed to search for documents and other things, after he found that there was no treasonable meeting being held? Surely there should be some investigation before a warrant was issued, because a policeman might be told by some irresponsible person that a treasonable meeting was being held, and upon that information he would be obliged to go to the place and make a search. Therefore, although he quite understood the spirit in which the Prime Minister had proposed the alteration, he failed to see, unless there were some explicit words put into the Bill to limit the power of Sub-Inspectors to make searches, that the concession would not be rendered valueless.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to point out that the clause was drawn for the purpose of enabling Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary to make search for arms and illegal documents. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would introduce an Amendment later on into the clause which would prevent search by night, except where there was reason to suspect that a meeting was being held of a secret society or illegal society in the house or about the premises in which the search was being made. But the question he had to put to the right hon. Gentleman was this— For what purpose was the search to be made? Was it to be made under these circumstances—that was to say where there was reasonable suspicion that a secret society was holding a meeting, search was to be made for the purpose of discovering arms or illegal documents for the purpose specified in the clause? Or was it to be made for the purpose of discovering the meeting? In the latter case, he would respectfully submit to the Prime Minister that the most convenient course would he to cut out the power of search by night as regarded arms and illegal documents, and bring up a new clause dealing with the right of entry—he said entry, because it was not a correct definition to call it right of search—at night for the purpose of discovering whether there was an illegal meeting being held or not. He repeated that the clause only referred to search for the purpose of discovering arms and illegal documents; and he feared that if the power of search were left expressly stated in the clause, it would be used by the police for all manner of searches en- 1824 tirely apart from the question whether illegal documents or arms were to be found or not.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was competent to speak of the view taken of this clause by the Lord Lieutenant, who had arrived at his conclusion after careful consultation with persons of authority in the disturbed districts. The Lord Lieutenant, under that advice, came to the conclusion that the power to search for arms and documents at night was an unnecessary element in a Bill of this kind. The Lord Lieutenant, however, held strongly to the necessity of having the power of entering premises where it was supposed that men were engaged in concocting crime. The Government had not yet obtained from the Lord Lieutenant the exact suggestion as to the sub-section which they would propose for the purpose of arming themselves with this power. But that sub-section the Government proposed to put in on the Report, and they would lay great stress on having it in the clearest form possible. Acting on the advice of the Lord Lieutenant, they were willing that there should be no night search for arms, documents, or other matters, except upon the condition stated by the Prime Minister.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he understood, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that the Government proposed to leave in the clause words giving power to the police to make search in the manner described in the daytime, and that the Government would bring up a sub-section on Report, giving the police power with regard to entering premises at night for the purpose of detecting illegal meetings.
§ MR. TREVELYANYes, Sir.
§ MR. MARUMbegged to thank the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for the concession he had made; but he had announced his intention, previous to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to move a Proviso to this clause, to the effect that no entry or search should be made in any church or place of worship, monastery, nunnery, or conventual establishment in Ireland, except in the presence of a magistrate. It was now unnecessary; but he would throw out to the Government whether the right of search could not be modified by such a right of sanctuary as was 1825 prevalent previous to the Reformation? The Committee would readily understand the feeling which existed amongst Irish Roman Catholics; and he thought the reservation which they had proposed to ask for was one which ought to be adopted for the purpose of satisfying the just susceptibilities of his countrymen, who would certainly view it with gratitude.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he agreed with the general spirit of the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Marum). Still, he thought, on a question of violation of domestic privacy, even a policeman would draw a distinction between the laity and the clerical world. If, however, the police made a mistake in the case of monasteries and other institutions, the Government would, of course, have to deal with the enormous and extreme unpopularity which would result there from. He confessed he should be sorry to see an exception of that kind in so many words introduced into the Bill. He had every reason to express a hope that the Prime Minister, who had met this difficulty in such a broad and statesmanlike spirit, would take into consideration the precautions impressed on the Government by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy)—namely, that there should be some protection against the police, on the plea of searching for illegal meetings, making use of the plea to break into houses during the night-time. He did not know whether the Government were prepared to introduce words to bring about that desirable result. Probably the only check to this over-zeal on the part of policemen was to be found in the strict supervision of their superiors, and he thought the police authorities ought to take care to inform the police that where they made use of the power of search in an undue manner they would incur the displeasure of their superiors. He might add that though the limitation of search for illegal meetings was a most valuable one with regard to the privacy of Irish householders, and one which, at the same time, did not interfere with the just powers and rights of the Government to deal with crime, yet he thought the right hon. Gentleman could not take too many precautions in guarding against his subordinates mistaking mere friendly meetings for meetings of secret societies, and treating 1826 them accordingly, unless something like very reasonable suspicion was entertained. He would not suggest the addition to the clause of any particular words; but he trusted that, in the instructions given to the police, great care would be taken on this point, because, if uncontrolled power of search were given to every policeman, all the aggravation and arrogance would be caused to the people, under cover of search for illegal societies at night, which the Government were desirous to save them from.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to apologize if he had led the Committee into anything like a discussion upon the alteration which the Government intended to make with regard to the right of search for arms and documents at night. He had endeavoured to make it clear that his announcement was made for the convenience of the Committee in dealing with the remaining portion of the clause. One word more. It had been said that reasonable suspicion was a thing which might be abused. But the same could be said of the word "suspected" in the first part of the clause as it then stood. Of course, the meaning of the Proviso intended to be inserted was that, although the police would be allowed to search only in case there was reasonable suspicion of a meeting of an illegal society being held, yet, having entered upon their search, it would, of course, be their duty to obtain anything in the nature of evidence with regard to the meeting which they might have been informed was going on.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that, although, considerable interest had naturally arisen from the statement of the Prime Minister, he must remind the Committee that there was a large number of Amendments to the clause, which it would be difficult to deal with unless hon. Members proceeded with their arguments upon the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he agreed with the desirability of not entering into a discussion upon the statement of the Prime Minister at that moment; but, at the same time, he thought it right to endeavour to obtain as much information as he could without discussing the intended Amendment. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the police, having entered a house and found no illegal meeting was to be held, would proceed with their search for 1827 arms and documents, or whether they would make only such search as would be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining that no illegal meeting was being held?
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he understood that there would be an opportunity for any Member, who did not wish at that moment to interrupt the course of Business, to express any objection which he might have to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Certainly, before the clause was put, he should like to make some observations upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, he wished also to express his thanks for the concession made by the Prime Minister. He trusted he should not be anticipating the discussion on a subsequent Amendment by expressing the hope that the Government would recognize the importance of making a further concession in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum).
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out that it was imperative that the Amendments on the Paper should now be proceeded with.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he proposed to omit, in line 11, the words "and sub-inspectors." Although the two Amendments standing in his name were very close together in point of time, yet they referred to a very different state of circumstances. In submitting to the Committee his last Amendment, he was attempting to bring in a clause which would insure to a free people the power to prevent their homes being entered, and to prevent any assault being made on their liberty, except by warrants definite and clear in their nature. But in the Amendment he was about to move, he dealt with the interests of persons subject to a law which rendered them no longer a free people. He believed hon. Members would be alive to the fact that it was more difficult to govern a people by despotism than it was to govern them on the principles of freedom. In the one case you had the assistance of every inhabitant of the country in preserving 1828 the peace and order of society, whereas, in the second case, you were dealing with people more or less your foes. Consequently, if peace was to be preserved, those who were practically despots must take care to do nothing to irritate what, perhaps, he might call the heart-broken people of Ireland. Nothing had tended more in past time to break down despotism than irritation. He need scarcely refer to the history of this country, which showed that at one time the Monarchy was almost broken down by the Act of a Minister—
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that he was travelling from the question before the Committee.
§ MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, his remarks were intended to support his Motion to eliminate the words "sub-inspectors" from the clause. He was arguing that under a despotism irritation was dangerous, because by acts of carelessness a Government which it was desired to preserve might be overthrown. Since the passing of the Act of last year, there had been a most remarkable increase of terrible crime in Ireland. Many reasons had been assigned for this increase, but he was inclined to think it had been caused by depriving the people of Ireland of that interest in their own concerns which belonged to every people. Having taken away from them that interest, having found a great increase not only in ordinary but in fearful crime, he wished that, as far as possible, fresh causes of irritation should be removed, and that Her Majesty's Government should take care in passing this Bill to make it work, if possible, smoothly. He, therefore, proposed to leave out that cause of irritation which arose from the employment, in searches for arms and documents, of sub-officials —people who were always willing to assume an authority which did not belong to them. The subject to which he asked the attention of the Committee was one of considerable importance. The whole of Europe, so to speak, was gazing upon that Committee, wondering at the events which had taken place in Ireland, and at the legislation proposed to deal with them; and he contended that it was a matter of necessity, in passing this Act, that all causes of irritation of the kind he had alluded to should be removed.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 11, after the word "inspectors," leave out "and sub-inspectors."—(Mr. T. G. Thompson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was afraid that if the eyes of Europe were gazing upon the Committee, Europe would have discovered that the hon. Member for Durham's idea of a Sub-Inspector of Constabulary was not a very clear one. A Sub-Inspector of Constabulary was, in point of education, very much like a subaltern officer; and, as far as his experience went, a subaltern of high order. The clause before the Committee, he need hardly point out, was one of extreme importance. It was not put in for the sake of appearance only, but in order that it might work; and, that being so, it was necessary that there should be a sufficient number of people to work it. It was a fact that there was only one Inspector in each county, and he might be at that time 30 or 40 miles away from the spot at which his services might be required; whereas in the case of Sub-Inspectors, there were 10 to 12 in each county, and if the clause was to work effectively he could not imagine a body of men more fitted to discharge the delicate duties which the clause imposed. The hon. Member for Durham had made an appeal to the Government not to pass another Act such as the Arms Act of last year, because since the time it came into operation an increase of crime had resulted. Her Majesty's Government, however, believed that in order to diminish crime the best way was carefully to study it and to see by what full, careful, and minute provisions this diminution could be effected. There were clauses in the Arms Act of last year which were found to be inefficient; but in this Bill the Government had introduced provisions which they believed would have the effect of putting down crime, although those provisions were milder in their character. For the reasons he had given he was unable to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham; and, in concluding his observations, he took an opportunity of expressing his belief that the Sub Inspectors of the Irish Constabulary were a body of 1830 men thoroughly to be trusted in this matter.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not wish to detract from the character of Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary, so far as their education was concerned; but the right hon. Gentleman must have paid very little attention to the history of Ireland during the last year, or he would have known that among that body many of it members had behaved in a way that did not recommend itself to his Predecessor in Office. The Sub-Inspectors to whom he referred were associated with deeds of a very questionable character, and it seemed almost impossible that the right hon. Gentleman could wish them to have anything to do with the carrying out of another Coercion Act. It was true that there was only one Inspector in each county; but the Government were asking to interfere with the peace, the privacy, and, to some extent, with the happiness of every home in Ireland, and, therefore, he thought he was not asking too much that the highest police authority in the district should alone be intrusted with the duty of carrying out this very objectionable clause.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that the concession of the Prime Minister was of so substantial a character that, on the supposition that it would be carried out bonâ fide, he believed there was now no difference between Irish Members and the Government with regard to this clause, except upon small matters of detail. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that the Government had already the power for five years to search for arms in houses in Ireland between sunrise and sunset. Now, he understood the Prime Minister was only prepared to ask that where the police had information of an illegal meeting taking place, they should have the power of search at night. If that were so, he thought Irish Members would be prepared to grant this clause as a whole. At any rate, for his part, he was prepared to do so, and to move no more Amendments to the clause if the Prime Minister was prepared to carry out the words he had used. As he understood it, all the Government asked in this clause was that the police should have the power to search for arms and illegal documents— not to pull down chimney-pieces, rip up floors, or turn decent women out of their 1831 beds, and compel them to dress themselves in the presence of constables. If it were understood that the police, on finding that no illegal meeting was being held, should immediately retire, then lie would vote for the Government on every Amendment that was proposed to this clause. He again thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made, which was one worthy of his character and of the position he held in that House.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was most reluctant again to intervene in this discussion, because he felt so much the force of the rule laid down from the Chair. But the hon. Member for Wexford had addressed to the Government an intimation of his intention, on certain conditions, to support the Government in reference to Amendments which might be proposed to this clause. If ho understood the words of the hon. Member rightly, he believed the Government were prepared to act as he had described. He could not say more than that at the present moment; but there was one remark which he felt bound to make. The hon. Member for Wexford and other hon. Members, in the course of their observations, had given him the credit of proposing this alteration; but he was bound to say that that credit was entirely due to his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had looked into this matter with the sincere desire that the Government should ask that which was necessary, and only necessary. It was the Lord Lieutenant himself to whom the credit of this concession was due.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he was fully sensible of the importance of the concession of the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had scarcely expressed the views of Irish Members upon this subject. His hon. Friend had said that the Government, by the Arms Act of last year, were entitled to search for arms for a period of five years in any house in Ireland; but he must point out that under this clause they would be entitled to search not only for arms, but for papers and documents. For his own part, he thought it right and proper to proceed with the discussion of the Amendment before the Committee. That Amendment was of extreme importance, and it was one 1832 which the Government should be willing to accept. Of course, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was perfectly accurate in saying that there was only one Chief Inspector in the county; but it must be remembered that the search contemplated by this clause was one of very great delicacy, and he thought the Government ought to concede the point that the search should be conducted by the highest police-officer in the county, whose functions could not be said to be very elaborate, and whose time, in consequence, might very well be spared. It must be remembered that these Sub-Inspectors were, as a rule, young men, and that some of them had given instances of great rashness of temper. He would refer to the case of Sub-Inspector Ball, who, it was well known, had exasperated the feelings of the people of Ireland to a considerable degree. Now, he thought that the powers of the clause should not be committed to a body which contained men of the character he had referred to. Although he felt the value of the right hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to night-searches, he believed that the employment of Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary was not the best arrangement that could be made, and that it might, on occasion, prove to be dangerous. If the Government did not think the County Inspectors sufficiently numerous to carry out the object of the clause, he asked whether they would arrange for the senior Sub-Inspectors to be placed in command of a body of officers, many of whom were young men?
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, that, in view of the fact that the Government were empowered to make search for arms under the Arms Act, he would ask the Prime Minister whether he would not get rid altogether of the search for documents? He objected to the words "sub-inspectors," not on the ground stated by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), but simply because he desired that the Lord Lieutenant should, as far as possible, abandon this general warrant of search. He regarded it as a most infamous thing that, after the long connection which had existed between England and Ireland, a general warrant of search should be conferred upon any man in Ireland; and, if the Government had decided that it should be given, he should feel it his duty to support the 1833 Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), because it might, to some extent, limit the objectionable character of this clause.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would be bound to vote with his hon. Friends, although he thought, after the substantial concession made by the Prime Minister, the Amendment might very fairly be withdrawn. He himself had an Amendment to the clause, but he should certainly withdraw it. He should vote with his Party, but he thought they had got more concessions on this clause than on any other. Ho was of opinion that on this question they ought to give the Government as little trouble as possible.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the Government could not do better than make a few more concessions, and then he had no doubt the Bill would pass through the House with extreme rapidity. The point before them was the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), and the object of that Amendment was to limit the power of arbitrary search. He had no doubt the Irish Constabulary were a very efficient body of men; but it was now attempted by the Government to vest them with most unreasonable powers, for they could enter, under this Act, any man's house at their will and pleasure. He held that that was a power that Englishmen would resent, and that which the Irish people were justified in resenting. For all political purposes the Government had sufficient power, without this particular power of arbitrary search; and he was certain that this clause, as it stood, would create the maximum of discontent with the minimum of service to the country. If there was one clause in former Coercion Acts which more exasperated the people than any other, it was a clause similar to this. If his hon. Friend went to a division he should certainly vote with him, for they were only asking for a limitation of action which would be of no service, and might be a great detriment.
§ MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that, from his knowledge of the Constabulary, it would be impossible to omit the word "sub-inspector." The object was to place on responsible officers the execution of these warrants, and, if he remembered rightly, in no former Bill of this character was the word "inspector" or 1834 "sub-inspector" omitted. These words were introduced as a safeguard to insure that the execution of these warrants would not be placed in the hands of the ordinary policeman. He held that when a warrant reached the hands of the County Inspector, he would choose the right man to carry out the delicate work; and he thought that if his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) were acquainted with thee circumstances of the police in Ireland, he would not now be found moving this Amendment.
§ MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, that, after what he had heard, he thought it would be only courteous to the Prime Minister if he withdrew the Amendment.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, that the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had said that the words "sub-inspector" had been introduced into the Bill for the purpose of rendering it necessary that responsible officers of the peace should have the execution of the warrant. So far as that was the object of the Government, he was quite willing to admit it was deserving of some respect. He, however, wished it to be understood that he objected, and he certainly thought that the majority of his Colleagues would object, to the words "sub-inspector," and that they would support the Amendment to leave them out simply because they would limit the exercise of these general warrants. He admitted that the Prime Minister had spoken very fairly; but it must be remembered that this clause was one which restricted the liberties of the Irish people, and it was a clause which the Irish people were bound to resent and resist. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) had said that he believed that the power given under this clause would bring about the maximum of discontent with the minimum of service to the State. He (Mr. Leamy) believed that the only service which this clause in this Bill could be would be that it would produce ill-feeling against the ignorant brood of men who knew nothing about the Irish people, and cared very little about them, and who were incapable of understanding them. ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. and learned Member opposite said "Oh, oh !"They were accustomed to look upon those Benches for the Whigs—
THE CHAIRMANThe question before the Committee is whether "and sub-inspectors" be left out of the clause?
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he would endeavour to confine himself to the subject. The subject was a very small one indeed, as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had intimated by his interjection. It was an exceedingly small subject; in fact, it seemed to him that every Amendment which hon. Members on this side of the House moved to this Bill was something exceedingly small indeed, and scarcely worthy of the consideration of the Committee. He was quite aware of it. He was quite aware that they should allow this Bill to pass without opposition, even though it embraced within it provisions which the Whigs—
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member that this is not a second reading. The question is simply whether "sub-inspectors" shall stand part of the clause?
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, ho objected to "sub-inspectors," simply because, for one reason, he thought that if the power of executing warrants of general search was confined to County Inspectors, then, as everybody must admit, it would be confined to a much smaller class than if Sub-Inspectors were allowed to exercise it. He objected to the whole power of general search. He and his hon. Friends had endeavoured to defeat it. They had, however, failed, and the next best thing for them to do was to endeavour to limit its exercise as much as they possibly could.
§ MR. R. POWERappealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) not to push this question to a division. He did so for this reason. He acknowledged that the Prime Minister had to-night made a concession to the Irish Party—a concession of the most valuable nature. They could not estimate the value of the concession that the police were not to invade the homes of the people of Ireland at any hour of the night. As the Amendment stood in the name of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), he thought that the hon. Member had some right to say whether this Amendment should be pressed to a division or not. He (Mr. E. Power) should be very sorry to interfere with his hon. Friend the Member for Durham in the matter; but he would ask 1836 his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Leamy) not to press the subject to a division, if the hon. Member for Durham did not wish it.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, that the concession made by the Prime Minister had completely taken the wind out of the sail of the Amendment; and, although a warrant might be executed by even a Sub-Inspector, his power in the matter was very considerably limited. There was now no ground for objection left, and he should certainly vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would not force his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) to go to a division if he did not wish it; but, if he did, he would certainly be very glad to follow him in the Lobby. He must take this opportunity of protesting against the weak and washy language in reference to the concession of the Prime Minister. The concession had nothing to do with the clause they were now discussing. The clause they were now discussing remained, in spite of the concession, a most stringent and aggravating-one. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had said that Sub-Inspectors were mentioned for the first time. The hon. Gentleman evidently had not taken the trouble to read the Arms Act of last year. If he had, he would have found that the Lord Lieutenant might commission Sub-Inspectors to issue these warrants.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that he most heartily welcomed every concession that was made that went to limit or diminish the stringency of the measure; at the same time, he did not see how it was possible for Irish Members not to insist upon every Amendment that would go still further to limit the severity of the Bill. Ho was grateful to the Prime Minister for every concession in favour of the liberty of the subject in Ireland, and in favour of restricting the tyranny which it was possible to practice under this Bill. He and his hon. Friends stood there fighting, it might be, a losing battle; but, nevertheless, it was a battle they were bound to fight for the liberties of their fellow - countrymen; and every Amendment which went to limit the hardships and the tyranny of this measure, they, as a matter of absolute duty, were bound to support. This Amendment went to restrict the opera- 1837 tion of the Bill. It was to the effect that Inspectors, and not Sub-Inspectors, should have liberty to make these searches. Inspectors were fewer in number than Sub-Inspectors; and, of course, if this Amendment were accepted, it must necessarily be expected that fewer searches—and searches upon less trivial grounds — would be made. Sub-Inspectors would, no doubt, make searches upon very slight suspicion; but Inspectors, being fewer in number, as he had said, would probably not go to work without some substantial evidence to work upon. That being so, it seemed to him that the duty of the Irish Members was as clear as the sun at noonday. That duty was to support the Amendment, and every Amendment which went to mitigate the severities of the measure. He welcomed the concession of the Prime Minister, and he welcomed the spirit in which it had been offered. He hoped that in the further progress of this measure the same spirit would be acted upon, not only by the Prime Minister himself, but by others who, in his absence, would have charge of the measure.
§ MR. SHEILsaid, he would endeavour to confine himself strictly to the Amendment before the Committee, and that Amendment he understood to be that the word "sub-inspector" should be omitted. He hoped that his hon. Friend would go to a division upon this Amendment, because it was of very great importance, notwithstanding the alteration —he preferred to call it an alteration, and not a concession—which the Prime Minister had made in the clause. Notwithstanding the alteration, which he admitted was an important one, he still thought that the power which would be placed in the hands of Sub-Inspectors was greater than some of them were entitled to have intrusted to them. They were young men, and from the position they held in the country, they were naturally arrogant. They sometimes rode over the people where they ought not to do so, and, altogether, it was very unwise that Sub-Inspectors should be intrusted with the execution of warrants. While he was on his legs he wished to refer to some remarks which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) towards the end of the Morning Sitting. The hon. Baronet suggested that whether it be 1838 an Inspector or a Sub-Inspector who was employed in the search, an accurate report should be made by the officer at head-quarters, giving the reasons for the search and its results. That was a suggestion made when the Prime Minister was absent, and it seemed to him of such importance that he now ventured to repeat it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LEAMYmoved to insert, after "in any," in line 14,"building or enclosure situated in any. "If his Amendment was accepted, the clause would run thus—
It shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant from time to time, by warrant, to direct the inspectors and sub-inspectors of constabulary for the time being acting in any constabulary district or any of them, to search for and seize in any building or enclosure situate in any proclaimed district, or in any part thereof, specified in the warrant.The Amendment was in the spirit of the Arms Act of last year, which empowered the Lord Lieutenant to issue warrants empowering certain persons to search for arms; but it was provided that the warrant should specify the houses, buildings, or other places which were to be searched. He submitted that it was not at all an unfair thing that some requirement of this kind should be inserted in the clause before the Committee. He did not see on what ground the Government could object to such a reasonable Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 14, after the words "in any," insert "building or any enclosure situate in any."—(Mr. Leamy.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ MR. R. POWERmoved to insert, after the word "ammunition," in line 15, the words "except a fowling piece, or ammunition for the same." His object in moving this Amendment was to protect small farmers in Ireland from being invaded in the day-time by the police who came to look for guns and ammunition. Under the Arms Act of last year there had been, of course, many searches for arms; but very few indeed had been found. He could not see why a farmer who had a licence for a gun, and who had also a licence to shoot over his own farm, should simply, because a person wrote to the Sub-Inspector and informed 1839 him that he had reason to believe that a certain farmer had arms in his house, should have his house invaded by the Constabulary at any hour of the day. He quite admitted that the Government had taken away from his argument a great deal of force by the concession which they had made in the previous Amendment, because his principal objection in this matter was that the farmer, simply because he had a gun in his house, should be liable to invasion at any hour of the night. They who lived in Ireland and knew how farmers carried on their farms, knew that it was necessary for them to have a gun for the protection of their crops—simply to frighten the crows out of their potatoes or wheat. The weapon used, however, was perfectly useless for any other purpose than that of frightening crows; and if they deprived the farmers of the use of it, they would inflict a great deal of injury upon them. If they were prepared to do that, they ought also to be prepared to grant compensation. He had another objection to this clause. Certain landlords in Ireland used the Peace Preservation Act for the preservation of their game; and, under the present Act, a landlord who wished to protect the game in his district, could exercise a large amount of power which certainly he had no right to possess. It was a monstrous thing that simply because a man had a gun in his house, and a person informed an Inspector that he had reason to believe that such was the case, that such Inspector should be able to go and take it away, although the man might have a perfect right to possess it to protect his crops from the depredations of birds and vermin.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 15, after the word "ammunition," to insert the words "except a fowling piece, or ammunition for the same."—(Mr. Richard Power.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had the greatest respect and sympathy for the feeling of hon. Members with regard to fowling-pieces and ammunition; but he would point out that, perhaps, other hon. Members might have the same feeling with regard to rifles and revolvers. They had all of them some favourite weapon, but he was afraid that 1840 whatever arm a person had a fancy for, it must be as suspicious as any other, and this fact must not be forgotten— which anyone who had had any experience of sport in India must know perfectly well—that a fowling-piece would send a bullet a distance of 50 or 60 yards as accurately and with almost as much effect as a rifle. A fowling-piece would send a bullet a short distance as satisfactorily as a rifle for all practical purposes, and, therefore, for all purposes of outrage a fowling-piece was as formidable as any other weapon that could be manufactured. If a farmer wished to carry a fowling-piece to protect his crops, or for the legitimate purpose of sport, he could go to the licence officer and obtain a licence. If he did not take that step, then he ought not to be allowed to keep a fowling-piece. As to the fear expressed by an hon. Member that some people would make use of the Arms Act for the preservation of their game, it must be remembered that not the landlords, but the stipendiary magistrates, were the licensing officers.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he agreed that to the murderer, or to the person who wished to commit an outrage, a fowling-piece was quite sufficient, but as a weapon of war it was totally useless. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had lived long enough in Ireland to thoroughly appreciate the complaint of the Irish farmers. These people required the use of fowling-pieces to protect themselves from birds. His hon. Friends called them "crows," but he did not think the birds that were such a nuisance to the Irish farmers were accurately described in the House of Commons by calling them crows. In England the great crow was the only bird called a crow, but in Ireland the rooks were called crows. Now, the rook might be a very useful bird at certain times of the year—[Cries of" Divide!"] Hon. Members cried "Divide!" but he wished to say a few words upon this question, as it was one in which he took a great deal of interest. He had taken the trouble, about a month ago, to question some of the farmers with regard to the depredations of these birds, and he had learned from them that they did damage in the country probably to the extent of £500,000 every year. He was told that each small farmer lost 1841 about£1 a-year through the depredations of the rooks. It would be seen, therefore, that the question was one of great importance to Irish agriculturists; and if the hands of these people were crippled, and they were not allowed to use the ordinary weapon for driving away or destroying the birds, they would be injured very much. The Amendment of his hon. Friend was a fair one, and he (Colonel Nolan) should give it his support. He did not desire to delay the clause, because he considered the Government had made ample concessions on it—indeed, if the Government made similar concessions he should be very willing to see the Bill pass through to-morrow or Thursday. He only wished to deal with this matter from an economical point of view, and he would suggest that if the Government did not allow the farmers to use fowling-pieces to protect themselves from the birds, the Poor Law Unions should be empowered to send officers on to the properties of the small farmers for the purpose of destroying the rooks and vermin. He would not enter fully into the desirability of adopting such a plan as this, but he would merely suggest that such a power might be given. Of course, the Poor Law Unions would not exercise it unless it were considered desirable to do so. On this matter there was great difference between England and Ireland. In England the rooks were shot every year, or every other year, in order to keep them down, and for the table, but in Ireland they were not shot for the latter purpose. The people would not eat them. It was necessary, however, that the farmers should have power to use fowling-pieces against them. They would not be able to drive them from their potatoes when the bulbs were beginning to form, and that was the time when most damage was done. If the Government prevented the farmers from doing that, they should take some other measures to protect them. Irish Members were bound to meet here in London, instead of Dublin, where all these things would be properly understood and properly considered, and that fact the Government ought to bear in mind. The Chief Secretary ought to take measures to ascertain the opinion of the country by requesting the evidence of competent men. He ought to take steps to find out whether, by refusing the 1842 farmers the use of fowling-pieces for the purpose of destroying rooks, he did not destroy the balance of nature, and allow the rooks to preponderate. As things were at present, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. Richard Power) ought to be supported. This question was one in which his (Colonel Nolan's) constituents took great interest.
§ MR. JONES PARRYsaid, he would not unduly occupy the time of the Committee. He should be very sorry to do so; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, and who attached such importance to rooks, appeared to know nothing about them and their habits. He (Mr. Jones Parry), however, did know something about them. He would not delay the Committee by stating his opinions or his experiences as to the habits of these birds, as it was utterly beside the question before the Committee—and, incidentally, he would remark that it would be a most desirable thing if hon. Gentlemen in this House would confine themselves more closely than they did to the questions directly under consideration. He would simply remark—and he would be very happy to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) his reasons for saying so, in private, if he desired them—that in his opinion, rooks did a great deal more good than harm. He would also venture to inform the hon. and gallant Member that young rooks made a remarkably good pie. He (Mr. Jones Parry), believing that rooks were not the only things shot from behind loop-holed stone walls in Ireland, should support the Government clause in its entirety.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had carefully guarded himself from expressing any opinion whatever as to whether rooks did harm or good. He had said that in Ireland they did not understand eating them—they had a prejudice, perhaps a bad one, against putting them in a pie. ["Order!"]
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he did wish to address the Chair, because he thought this was a very important matter. If the Government insisted upon destroying the balance of nature by depriving farmers of their fowling-pieces, which were legitimate weapons for the pur- 1843 pose of destroying or frightening away the rooks, the Poor Law authorities should be enabled to take up the matter, As he had said, he did not pronounce an opinion as to whether rooks did good or harm. That was a question for the decision of scientific men; but the Committee was now proposing to interfere in Ireland with the system of preserving the ordinary balance of nature that they allowed to be practised in England. They allowed the farmers to frighten away the crows in England, but they would not permit it in Ireland. He merely wished to point out that a very large economic damage would be done by the passage of this clause, and the Arms Act, with which it was mixed up, and that the Chief Secretary ought to very carefully consider the matter before he came to a final resolve. He (Colonel Nolan) had some idea of introducing a clause on this subject on Report, but he was not sure at present whether or not such a course would be in Order. His clause would have the effect of giving the Poor Law authorities power to destroy the rooks where they thought it desirable.
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, he did not rise to discuss the merits or demerits of rook-pie, but he would like to point out to the hon. Member who introduced this interesting subject that rook-pie was a dish the Irish farmers were scarcely likely to enjoy, unless they were allowed to use weapons for the purpose of shooting the birds. He should like to ask the Government whether this clause was to override the Act of last year on this subject? Under the Act of last year a man might have obtained a licence to use a fowling-piece. That licence might have been given to him upon the production of a certificate signed by two magistrates in his own locality; and was he (Mr. Redmond) to understand—and he respectfully asked the attention of the Home Secretary, or some Member of the Government, to this matter—that under this clause the mere suspicion of a policeman was to override that certificate? ["No, no!"] The hon. and learned Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) said "No, no!" but if the hon. and learned Member would read the clause, he would see that under it a person who had obtained a warrant from the Lord Lieutenant would be empowered, if he suspected that arms 1844 were in the possession of an individual, or were about to be used in connection with a secret society, to search the house or houses where he believed the arms to be, and might, if he found any, take possession of them, notwithstanding that they had been obtained under the Arms Act of last year.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if a man had obtained a licence under the Arms Act of last year, the mere fact of his possessing such a document would show that the arms were not likely to be suspected of being required for an unlawful purpose.
§ MR. REDMONDThat is ridiculous.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member asked him a question, but would not allow him to answer it. If the hon. Member would allow him, ho would attempt to give him an answer. What he wished to say was this, that a licence under the Arms Act of last year would not come within this clause. Arms carried by licence would not be arms—
Suspected to be used or to be intended to be used for the purpose of, or in connection with, any secret society or secret association existing for criminal purposes.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, ho would not detain the Committee two minutes; but he wished to ask whether, if farmers were not to be allowed to keep fowling-pieces for shooting these rooks which preyed upon their crops, would the police undertake to shoot the birds for them? The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) knew what he was talking about on this matter, and he said that the birds did damage to the extent of about £500,000 per annum in Ireland. It was pointed out that the farmers could obtain licences to use fowling-pieces; but to obtain these licences they would have to go before the local magistrates, and that, he could assure the Committee, was a thing that very many farmers in Ireland would be very reluctant to do. If they went before a magistrate for this purpose, it was very probable that their request would not be listened to, that it would be refused, and that they would be insulted into the bargain. That would be likely to occur in very many cases; and he, therefore, said that if the farmers were not to be allowed to keep fowling-pieces for the purpose of destroying or frightening away the rooks, would the 1845 Government instruct the police to shoot the birds for them?
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary did not answer the question he had put to him as to whether the suspicions of a policeman were to override the Arms Act? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that when a licence was granted, the arms carried under that licence were not likely to be used for illegal purposes. He (Mr. Redmond) should suggest that the clause should be amended by the insertion of the words "except in the case of persons who had received licences." As the clause stood at present, even where licences were granted, the arms might be seized if subsequently a police-officer chose to suspect that they were going to be used for an improper purpose.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 31; Noes 155: Majority 124.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 15, after the word "ammunition," to insert the words "except arms held under licence under 'The Peace Preservation Act, 1881.'"—(Mr. Redmond.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. If arms were used in connection with a secret association, no licence ought to protect them.
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, that if a licence was given to a man to carry arms by three magistrates, who believed him to be a proper person to have arms, such a man was not likely to have arms for felonious purposes. The clause without this Amendment would have this effect. That although a man might have a licence, in consequence of a certificate of three magistrates, that licence might be overridden simply by the suspicion of a police-officer. For this reason he urged the Amendment on the Committee, and hoped the Government would make some further statement, and not dismiss the proposal in a few words.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was true that if arms were employed for criminal purposes, a licence should not cover them; but the point of the hon. Member was that the fact of a licence 1846 granted by three magistrates ought to be stronger than the suspicion of a police-officer, and he did not think the Home Secretary had answered that objection. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was, that if arms were to be used for criminal purposes, or secret associations, of course licences should not cover them; but the question was whether the mere suspicion of an Inspector that arms were to be used for criminal purposes should override the licence of three magistrates? He thought the Government, having made a concession last year in the Arms Act, should not now take away the value of a licence by a side-wind.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that it was not reasonable that where three magistrates had carefully investigated the application of a man to have a licence to carry arms, after hearing the Constabulary authorities and everybody else interested in the case, that a Sub-Inspector, under the authority of a general warrant, issued by the Lord Lieutenant in regard to a particular district, should be allowed to go and over ride the action of the magistrates upon mere suspicion, and should be allowed to enter a house and confiscate any arms that might be found. Such a course would be worse than an absurdity—it would be a hardship. In the first place, a licence was given to a man to carry arms; but the next day a Sub-Inspector, simply by having a general warrant, would search a district and seize and confiscate the arms for which the licence was granted on the suspicion that they were intended for the purpose of, or in connection with, some secret society. The authorities already had a remedy for such a case. If, at any time, in granting a licence, the police should consider, owing to circumstances that might have come to their notice, or information they might have received, that a person holding a licence ought not to continue to hold it, it was in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to revoke that licence and so deprive the man of his arms. Surely it was not too much to ask, having in view that the Government had, itself power to revoke a licence, that the Amendment should be accepted. It was a most reasonable proposal, and he could not for a moment imagine why the Government objected to it. If there was any reasonable suspicion that a person licensed to carry arms was going to use them in 1847 connection with a secret association, that circumstance could be reported to the Castle, and the licence could be revoked.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he quite admitted that this clause, like many other clauses in the Bill, inflicted some hardship; but suppose that, in a search of this kind, the Inspector found arms which he had good reason for suspecting were about to be used for criminal purposes, was he to leave those arms in the hands of the men with all the risks of what use might be made of them while an application was being made to the Lord Lieutenant? That would be an entirely intolerable course. This clause, more than any other clause in the Bill, was directed to the evil of secret associations and to the apparatus of crime. Were they to leave the apparatus of crime in the hands of persons by whom they might be used for the most grave offences until a roundabout application could be made to the Lord Lieutenant to revoke the licence? The hon. Member said the licence might have been granted in the belief that the person receiving it was fit to be trusted; but magistrates were not infallible, although, for this purpose only, hon. Members opposite were disposed to to attach great value to the belief of magistrates that a man could be trusted with arms. A man might be perfectly well conducted when he received his licence, but he might be misled and betrayed into membership of a secret association, and so become totally unfit to be trusted with arms, and he might be found in possession of arms under circumstances leading to the conviction that he was going to use them for the worst purposes. Yet it was held that these arms were to be left in his hands until an application could be made to the Lord Lieutenant, and if that course were adopted the clause would be totally useless.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, it appeared to him that the Home Secretary had entirely forgotten the substantial concession recently made by the Prime Minister with reference to secret associations—namely, that searches were only to be made upon proof, or strong suspicion founded upon proof, that meetings of a society were being held in a particular house. Under ordinary circumstances, this section would carry the law no further than the section of the Peace Preservation Act of 1871 which enabled searches to be made for arms. That was substantially as far as 1848 this clause went, and the only exception now to be engrafted on the Act of 1881 would be the exception of search by night upon proof, or upon suspicion founded upon proof, that a secret society was holding a meeting at that moment in a particular house. What answer was there to the Amendment? Under the Act of 1881 the licence would save the possessor of arms; under this clause the licence ought equally to save him, unless some secret meeting was being held at a particular moment in his house, and proof of that meeting was in the hands of the Inspector or Sub-Inspector. He was quite at a loss to understand upon what principle or argument the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was founded after the concession made, and after the Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister. There had been no answer given to this Amendment, and, in his opinion, no answer could be given to it.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, it was not necessary to say that this clause would work hardship, because in that particular it was the same as every other clause in the Bill. He was at a loss to understand what difficulty the Government saw in accepting this Amendment. The Home Secretary laid stress on the time consumed in applying for a revocation of a licence; but everyone knew the speed with which communications were now carried on between different districts and Dublin Castle, and if a person in any district was no longer fit to hold arms, the telegraph wire would take that fact in half-an-hour to Dublin, and the licence could be revoked the next morning. The possession of a licence ought to protect a man from a domiciliary visit. The licence meant that two district magistrates were of opinion that the holder was fit to carry arms, and, furthermore, it meant that the opinion of district magistrates was confirmed by the Resident Magistrate, who was the highest police authority in the matter. In what a strange position that would leave the Government? On the one hand, there would be the man holding the licence declaring him fit to hold arms in the opinion of two district magistrates and one Resident Magistrate; and, on the other hand, a Sub-Inspector overriding the opinion of his official superiors, which was an improper and irrational proceeding. But suppose that a Sub- 1849 Inspector made a search—and he could conceive circumstances under which a search might be made from the point of view of the Government — suppose a Sub-Inspector got information that a society was holding a meeting in a house, and that there was a large number of weapons in the house to be used for criminal purposes, then he could understand the Sub-Inspector making a search; but if he made the search and found only the weapons for which the licence was granted, then on what pretence could they be confiscated? He invited the Home Secretary seriously to consider this point. He would let the Sub-Inspector make a search; but if he found only the arms mentioned in the licence, which a Resident Magistrate and two district magistrates thought the man was entitled to have, then the arms ought not to be taken away.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Home Secretary was going back on his old tack again. He had informed the Committee, with awe-stricken manner, that this clause was directed against secret societies; but experience showed that if there was one thing which domiciliary visits failed to do, it was to reach secret societies. He wished to ask the Home Secretary how many arms had been seized from secret societies by domiciliary visits since the Arms Act was passed in March of last 3'ear? Had he seized one? Had a single gun or weapon of any kind been seized under that Act which was suspected of being intended for the purposes of a secret association? Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a single instance; and, if not, why did he wish to retain this power? A clause of this kind was only useful for the purpose of irritating the population. He knew that many young men, shop-assistants and others, in Limerick had been turned into Fenians by the operation of a similar clause in the Act of 1870. They never intended to do anything against the Crown, but their boxes and private possessions had been turned out by the police, on the ground of searching for arms, and those men had since become Fenians, at least, in their hearts. It was in this way that revolution and sedition in Ireland were cultivated. He thought, as the Home Secretary was now asking for more stringent powers, he ought to show that the Act of last 1850 year had been in any single instance effectual in regard to secret and illegal societies.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it seemed to him that the remarks of his hon. Friend called for an answer. He himself had shown earlier in the evening that, whereas, under a provision inserted in the Arms Act, £2,000 had been paid for arms legitimately delivered to the authorities, not a single gun or revolver had been seized under the right of search. He thought the Committee had a right to be informed what advantage the Government had obtained by the powers they already possessed, and if it was the case, as the Return showed, that a sum of over £2,000 had been paid for weapons honestly and legitimately delivered up by people who could not obtain licences to carry arms. The Chief Secretary, at least, ought to state how many guns, or revolvers, or cartridges, had been delivered under the existing Arms Act. He quite agreed that if the right hon. Gentleman had no information he could not give it; but, generally, if he had information he was very anxious to launch it upon the Committee. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had stated that not a single revolver, or gun, or a pinch of powder, or a percussion cap had been seized under the existing powers to search between sunrise and sunset; and, per contra, as the Government had, under what might be called the benevolent clause of the former Act, refunded £2,000 to persons for their arms and ammunition, it stood to reason, if the Government wished to get arms delivered back from those who held them, that they should still pursue the benevolent method, and not the reverse, as they now proposed. Was it desirable to pursue the discussion upon this clause after the statement made by the Prime Minister? After that statement, he thought they might come to a speedy conclusion upon it. If it were the fact, as the Prime Minister had said, that they only wished to use this power of night-search to discover the holding of illegal meetings, what was the good of the Government going on with the clause? They already had the power to search by day, and why should the Home Secretary be so obstinate as to this particular provision? Let the Home Secretary answer the question of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and 1851 say whether the Government had found a single gun or pinch of powder under the Arms Act; and whether ho supposed that during the night members of secret societies, who possessed guns or ammunition, would transfer those illegal articles from bog-holes and grave-yards and other places of illegal deposit to their homes for illegal purposes.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the manner in which this discussion was being conducted. He had already said what he had to say upon this clause, and now the hon. Member asked for details as to the seizure of arms. That was not his special department; he knew more about arms in England. But the hon. Member was entirely mistaken if he supposed that no arms were seized under the Act of last year.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that was not his question. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and by implication ho made a statement, whether any arms had been seized by means of domiciliary visits, which were intended to be used, or were suspected of being intended to be used, by secret societies?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was answering the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), who said that not a single gun or pinch of powder had been taken under the Act of last year. That statement was not accurate. To say there were not as many arms as might have been seized, and, in his opinion, ought to have been seized, would be perfectly true, and that was why this clause was introduced. The clause in the last year's Act was unfortunate, on account of the limitations in the warrant, and that was why this clause was introduced without such limitations on the search-warrant, because these limitations defeated the Search Clause last year. Believing that there were in Ireland at this time—and, he might say, knowing that there were—large quantities of arms in the possession, or in connection with, secret societies, this clause was introduced in order that they might be found and seized.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the Committee that in the last two or three speeches there has been no relevancy to the Amendment. The Amendment is to except arms held under licences under the Peace Preservation 1852 Act of 1881; but the whole discussion has been upon the clause, and not on the Amendment. I must ask any hon. Gentleman who rises to speak to the Amendment alone.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, he must confess that he did not agree with some of his hon. Friends who had spoken on this Amendment, for he thought it would be a good tiling if the police were to seize most of the arms held under permission from the magistrates. The object of this clause, as the Government proposed it, was to enable the Sub-Inspectors to deprive any farmer, who might happen to be objectionable to them, of the fowling-piece which was necessary for the protection of his field from birds and rabbits. There was not the slightest probability that this clause would enable the Government to seize any arms intended to be used for illegal purposes. The power under the present Act had never enabled the Government to seize those arms, and they never would be able to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that he was better informed in reference to arms in England than in Ireland. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge of the number and condition of arms in England could be judged by the statement in the public Press, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge was very limited indeed. The danger of this clause, as it stood, in reference to Ireland, was that it might be used in a malicious way by the police to deprive farmers of the arms which were necessary to protect their crops, and thereby inflict on farmers, who might be regarded by the police as objectionable persons, serious loss from damage to their crops. The Amendment, as it stood, would diminish that danger. Speaking for his own county, he knew that injury had already been inflicted, practically in defiance of the law, by the police, upon every man who was suspected of being a person holding opinions not liked by the police authorities of the country. These men had been deprived of their arms. They had been robbed during the last year of a certain amount of their crops by being deprived of their arms, with which they were enabled to kill the game which was so destructive to their crops, and, therefore, he did not agree with some of his hon. Friends who had spoken upon this question. He was of 1853 opinion that it was a very good thing for every man to have a gun, and he should take the liberty of differing materially and strongly with the hon. Gentleman who had supported this Amendment.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, the object of the clause was simply vexatious and irritating to the well-disposed and law-abiding people, while it would not in any way interfere with the criminals. It appeared that, under this Act, constables would have power to confiscate arms and ammunition. He himself had had some experience of the inconvenience and annoyance which arose from confusing and conflicting Acts of Parliament with reference to the possession of arms in Ireland. In the year 1871, when the Act of 1870 was in force, he was in possession of a bijou rifle, and he went down to the sea-side, taking this rifle with him. The Wild Birds' Act was not then in force, and he wished to amuse himself by shooting sea-gulls and the like. It so turned out that he went into a proclaimed district, and a police-constable came up to him and asked him whether he had a licence to carry this toy-rifle. He produced an Excise licence, but he was told that that was not sufficient, and that he would have to be taken into custody. He told the constable who he was, and the constable was very civil. He was desirous not to take him (Mr. Gray) into custody, but he said the law was imperative, and he should have to arrest him. This was on the Saturday afternoon, and he was brought to the police-station. At the station he saw the Inspector, to whom he said, "This is a very irritating business;" to which the Inspector replied—"I do not wish to keep you, but I have no option; I must keep you. I have no means of liberating you now, as there happens to be no magistrate in the county, and the only thing that I can suggest is that you should remain in the cell until Monday morning. "This was at Mallahide; and the Inspector said that the magistrate might probably return to his residence on Monday morning, when he (Mr. Gray) could be liberated. This was not a very pleasant prospect, and he asked the Inspector if there was no other way by which he could be liberated before Monday. The Inspector replied, "No; I am very sorry, but I must keep you." At last, he (Mr. 1854 Gray) said—"Well, you had better send me in custody into Dublin, and there we will find a magistrate who is a magistrate of the county." He was sent to Dublin in charge of a constable bearing his own and his (Mr. Gray's) rifles. He was brought to Dublin Castle, and there he was introduced to the Inspector General of Constabulary, who said he was sorry for the inconvenience to which he (Mr. Gray) had been put, and, as he was a magistrate for the county as well as for the city, he would liberate him at once. He (Mr. Gray) heard no more about the matter. He was not disposed at that time to be of a very rebellious disposition, or to use his rifle for the purpose of committing any offence; but this just illustrated the way these Acts were worked. They irritated and annoyed the lawfully-disposed people, while they did nothing towards catching any member of criminal society. The clause, as modified by the Prime Minister, proposed that these night domiciliary visits should only be used for the purpose of arresting people who were actually meeting in a house for secret purposes. For what purpose did the Government ask power to seize arms? Surely, it merely led to confusion; it merely tended to irritate and cause discontent amongst the lawfully-disposed, and it never would touch a single criminal. It had not been shown that under the Act of last year a single arm was confiscated that the Government suggested as being used for the purpose of a secret society. Doubtless, by this clause, many persons as loyal as he was in 1870 would be greatly irritated. Though the occurrence which he had related did not turn him into a Fenian, it greatly annoyed him, and he had never forgotten it, and he had never had the same respect for English administered law since that date as he had before. They might occasionally seize arms by entering houses at night; but it was possible to be shown, subsequently, that those arms had been licensed under the Act of last year. He had no hesitation in saying that this clause would not affect secret societies in the slightest degree, but it would create discontent and disaffection.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Government had not been able to mention a single instance in which, during the last year, any gun or ammunition had been seized as a result of domiciliary visits which 1855 was intended to be used for the purpose of a secret society, and he believed it might also be stated to be a fact that no weapon of any kind had been seized as the result of any domiciliary visit at all, thus clearly showing that such clauses were perfectly useless for the purposes they had in view. He wished to show, also, that this clause would supply an inducement to the persons who believed the police had any ill-will against them to conceal any valuable arms they might have. Suppose a farmer with a valuable fowling-piece worth, say, £20 or £30, for which he had got a licence, it would be in the power of a magistrate or Sub-Inspector to come in at random after that licence had been given, and, under a warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, absolutely confiscate that weapon. Consequently, any person who had a valuable arm of any kind would be very much inclined to conceal it, if he had reason to suppose that the police had any spite against him and intended to search his house for arms.
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, that what had happened with reference to this Amendment was a very fair instance of the way in which the Government, by their own obstinacy, prolonged the discussion upon the clauses of this Bill. The point for which the Irish Members were contending was a very small one. The Amendment, if the Government had assented to it, would not in the slightest degree have impaired the efficiency of the clause, but, by making a concession, the Government would have tended, to some extent, at any rate, to conciliate a large section of the Members in this House, and they would certainly have facilitated the progress of the Bill. But on every occasion of this kind, when matters like this were left to the discretion of the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), they found the Government taking a most firm position, and refusing to make the slightest concession. Before they proceeded to a division, he would like to ask the Committee seriously to consider what the real point at issue was. Under the Act of last year, it was provided that farmers of respectable character, who were able to prove that they were of respectable character to two magistrates belonging to their own districts, should obtain from those two magistrates a certificate of good character, and a certi- 1856 ficate that they were not about to use arms for illegal purposes. They thereupon could obtain from the licensing authority, which was composed of the Resident Magistrates, a licence to carry arms. It was, however, provided by this clause of the present Bill to override that licence at the mere suggestion of a police-officer. The contention of the Home Secretary was very plain and very unjust. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that the licence to the farmer might have been granted 12 months ago, but the suspicion that he was about to use his arms for illegal purposes might be of more recent date, and, if that were so, the suspicion must be acted upon at once and without the delay that would be consequent upon. what the right hon. and learned Gentleman called a roundabout application to the Lord Lieutenant to revoke the licence. That was a fair statement of the objection which had been argued by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who, by the way, added that the police authorities would not have power to search for those arms without, in the first place, making an application to the Lord Lieutenant. The answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was conclusive. If, in the first place, the police were able to give sufficient reason to the Lord Lieutenant to induce him to grant a warrant to enable them to search for arms, they, at the same time, would be able to give sufficient reason to the Lord Lieutenant why he should revoke the licence previously granted. There was not the slightest necessity for a second's delay. As soon as the police authorities believed there were in a particular district arms which might be used for illegal purposes, all they would have to do was this. In addition to applying to the Lord Lieutenant for power to search houses, they must represent to His Excellency the necessity of revoking the licence he had granted. Such a proceeding would not entail any delay, and he ventured to say that the request of the Irish Members in this matter was most reasonable. A second point was raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Under the Act of last year, it was provided that if men possessing arms gave their arms up voluntarily to the Constabulary they should be paid compensation, and in case they had obtained a licence, they 1857 were allowed, of course, to retain their arms. What was proposed by this clause? In the case where men had not given up their arms because they had got licences to keep them, it was proposed, on the suspicion of a police officer, to take their arms from them without any compensation whatever. The least that might be done would be this—that in cases where arms were taken from persons who had previously held them under a licence, the Government should grant them compensation. If the Government acted upon the principle of the Bill of last year, they were bound to give the people compensation, because compensation was only refused in cases where they had refused licences, and where the people had refused to give up their arms. The Home Secretary, as another objection to the Amendment, said that the magistrates in granting the licences might not be infallible. It was well known the magistrates were not infallible; but did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to contend that police officers, on whose suspicion a seizure of arms would be made, were infallible? If he did not, what did he mean by talking about the fallibility of magistrates. He sincerely trusted that upon this matter he would have the support, not only of hon. Members from Ireland, but those hon. Members representing English constituencies who did not desire to see this Act more oppressive on the people of Ireland than was absolutely necessary, in their opinion, for the suppression of crime.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it appeared to him that the Home Secretary must be quite unaware of the proposal which had been previously made. The fact was that the police should only enter a house for the purpose of search, and the Amendment proposed that arms which had been previously licensed should not be seized by means of a night's search, day search, or any search at all. If it be the case that nothing should be seized at night, except when an illegal meeting was discovered, it was evident, from the position which the Home Secretary had taken up, that he was quite unaware of the concession made by the Prime Minister. He would ask when the Government intended to bring in their Amendment as foreshadowed by the Prime Minister? Would they bring it up to-morrow, or upon Report?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTOn Report.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 32; Noes 203: Majority 171.—(Div. List, No. 161.)
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he rose to move an Amendment, the object of which was to take from Sub-Inspectors the power proposed in this clause of not only searching for and seizing arms and ammunition, but also papers and documents. This power, if exercised, would, he believed, lead to a vast amount of irritation and exasperation, and would scarcely be of any practical value to the Government. If the Government thought arms were concealed in Ireland, to be concealed for the purpose of treason or the commission of crime, there might, from their point of view, be very good ground for taking this power of search; but the Committee should bear in mind the way in which this power of seizing papers was exercised during what was called a conspiracy in Ireland. The police entered houses and ransacked every part; searched for papers, and took away not only papers which could by any possibility be connected with secret associations, but papers belonging to all the members of the family. He hardly understood how any Englishman could support such a power as was claimed under this clause. He could not expect, at that time of the night, when English Members had gone away, disgusted probably with the proceedings of the Committee, and with the fight which Irish Members thought it necessary to make for what they believed to be the rights of their people under the Constitution, to secure the sympathy of English Members; but he would ask any English Member who cared to listen whether he did not think that Ireland was a part of the Kingdom which ought to enjoy some of the benefits of the British Constitution; and whether he thought it right to seize papers which might be suspected by a policeman as absolutely necessary for preventing crime in Ireland; and whether he thought such a power could have any effect but to further irritate the people against the English Government, and convince them of the uselessness of expecting to have an equal share in the benefits of the Constitution? The searches under 1859 the Arms Act of last year bad been very extensive, and sometimes the police entered 100 houses in one day in the same locality. These visits had been so carried on that floors bad been broken up, and every part of the house which, in the opinion of the police, might conceal arms had been torn open in the search. He could understand that if the police were authorized to search for documents their search must be minute; but he could not understand the Home Secretary asking for this clause. He bad heard the right hon. Gentleman describe himself as a Whig; but he thought the Home Secretary might have gone back to the time when Fox and the Duke of Bedford were standing up for the right of freedom of speech in the country, and have followed their example. How could the Chief Secretary for Ireland support this clause? He did not care whether it was exercised by day or by night; but he was not willing to be held as joining in the praises which had been expressed of the Treasury Bench for the so-called concessions they had made. The proposals of the Government were equally opposed to the Constitutional rights of the Irish people; and, therefore, he was equally opposed to this power of search. How could the Home Secretary justify this power—this searching which would go to the length of examining every portion of a house and carrying off every paper that could be found? It was stated the police might only search for documents which they suspected were connected with unlawful societies. How would this clause work? A search might be made in a country district on a particular day, when, perhaps, 40 or 50 houses would be examined; a number of manuscripts would be found in each house, and these loose papers could not be examined there and then in the house, to show whether they were or were not connected with secret societies, but they would be carried away altogether. That happened in 1866–7, when letters which had no connection with secret societies—and even girls' love-letters—were carried off. What could the Home Secretary expect to gain by this proposal? He knew bow minute a search for arms could be; but if documents were to be searched for, even a man's clothes hanging on a door would be subject to examination, and every piece of paper upon which there was the least writing would be seized. Did the 1860 Home Secretary think that if such a power of search were given to the police, and was known throughout the country, that people were fools enough to keep compromising documents inside their house? Of course, they would not do anything of the kind, and when the police made searches the only people likely to be hurt would be the innocent people. Other people who desired to keep secret arms and papers would take good care to have them outside the house. He did not see how the Home Secretary could hope to gain by this power, and he hoped the Amendment would receive the support of English Members.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 15, to leave out from the word "ammunition," to the words "to be "in line 16.—(Mr. Leamy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'papers, documents, instruments, or' stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked that be had already pointed out that this clause was directed against secret societies, and unless the Government possessed these powers they could not attempt to grapple with secret societies. Did hon. Members mean to say that if the police found in the house these documents of incitement to assassination and intimidation, and murderous placards, they were not to seize them? Of course, they must seize them, and take into custody the people who were in charge of them. If anything was to be done for the prevention of crime it must be by actions of this character, and he must be permitted to say that when the Committee entered on the consideration of this Bill hon. Members opposite said they were very anxious to co-operate in a Bill for the prevention of crime. He should like to know what symptom there bad been from them of that desire? What were the measures which hon. Members were disposed to take for the prevention of crime in Ireland '? He should like to see any one hon. Gentleman on those Benches get up and say in what way they had assisted in any measure for the prevention of crime. There was no clause or suggestion for that purpose which had not met with the same extreme and unrelenting opposition. What were the measures hon. Members proposed to 1861 take? He should have thought that if there was any measure in passing which every right-minded man in that House, and out of the House, would have been disposed to take part, it would have been something that would have given power to the law to stop the circulation of such documents as that which had been read on the previous nights, inciting to the murder of innocent men, simply for lending cars to the police. The Government must and would take such powers as were necessary to seize such documents.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to ask Irish Members what measures they would recommend for the prevention of crime in Ireland, because they had repeatedly, during the last 12 months, informed the House of the measures they proposed; but the Government had rejected their recommendations. A short time ago they recommended an Arrears Bill, and they believed—and they ought to know—that if that Bill had been passed, and the Government had not gone back upon their brutal policy of coercion, which had proved to be a failure under the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), crime would have been prevented. During the fortnight or three weeks when it was supposed the Government were about to depart from this policy of coercion crime greatly diminished in Ireland—it diminished as much in one month, when it was supposed that the Government were going to trust to the honour and good feeling of the Irish people to repress crime, as it had increased during the four months of the coercion policy of the late Chief Secretary. The Irish Members had never ceased recommending such measures in order to prevent crime, and he failed to see what further proof could be given to the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been a consistent advocate of legal violence against the Irish people; and yet he now came forward with his last act of legal violence, which he was pressing through the House with the relentless determination to accept no Amendment except those of trivial importance. Irish Members did not lie under the reproach of having refrained from stating their recommendations. They believed Ireland would have been pacified if the counsels 1862 of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland had not been followed. Those counsels had been followed, and the responsibility was not on the shoulders of the Irish Members; and he thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) was entitled to some other reply than that he had received on the present occasion. Under this clause, as it stood, the police could take a man's clothes on the ground that they were to be used for the purpose of carrying out the objects of illegal associations. There was no definition in this Act from beginning to end, and that was what the hon. Member asked for. The Home Secretary had persistently followed up his policy upon this clause of refusing to define anything, and of leaving every person and every civil right in Ireland to the tender mercies of the police.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the Home Secretary told the Committee that he was anxious to have the power of searching for treasonable and seditious documents. He begged to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary what he thought of the following document:—
Think you Queen of England, you Prince of Wales, you Duke of Edinburgh, you Duke of Connaught, you Prince Leopold, you Princesses Royal, Helena, Louise and Beatrice; you lazy Royal louchers on the labours of the people—
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN,said the extract was from an Irish paper—
You lazy Royal louchers on the labours o a suffering people, and you haughty aristocrats, you bloated capitalists, you land and money thieves—
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is reading an article which uses disrespectful words to the Queen. It is not allowed that disrespectful words to the Queen should be used in this House even in a quotation.
§ MR. HEALYrose to Order. This clause dealt with any arms, ammunition, papers, or documents, and with the power to seize papers and documents under this clause. He wished to ask whether the fact that the more reprehensible the language read by the hon. Member was the more desirable it was that it should be exposed in the Committee?
THE CHAIRMANThe point of Order is a different matter. In any speech of any hon. Member, even by quotation, it is improper to use words disrespectful to the Sovereign.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would not read another word of the extract which was disrespectful to the Royal Family; but he would go on with the other portion—
Think, you haughty aristocrats, you bloated capitalists, the land and money-thieves of today—think, we say, before it is too late, and repent of your misdeeds; disgorge the wealth you have only got by murder, exaction, robbery, and rapine of the most vile form; tremble with the knowledge that the day of retribution is fast approaching when an oppressed nation will rise in the majesty and grandeur of their might, and sweep you, the blight and curse of every age, from the face of the earth like so many vermin as you are. Oh, yes! sweep you from the earth, for only your extinction can cure our misery. And now, what is the remedy for such a state of things? Why, a war to the knife against the governing classes of to day—war against all these legalized thieves and murderers. Oh, yes! workers of to-day, there is nothing left for you to do but to steel your nerves, dry your powder, sharpen your weapons, tighten your grasp, and drive the blight flashing steel clean through the trembling heart of your bloodstained foe.The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said he wished to search for treasonable and seditious documents. Surely he ought to search for treason and documents wherever they were to be found; and this extract, though it appeared in an Irish paper, appeared there only for the purpose of denouncing it, while the paper in which it first appeared as serious advice and counsel to the people, was not an Irish paper, but an English paper. By this extract he would test the sincerity of the Home Secretary. Why was treason and sedition to be sought for and punished in Ireland, and allowed to go scot free in England? There was no Irish paper that would seriously publish this extract; and, although it appeared in an Irish paper, it was published in order to be held up to scorn and reprobation. But there was no reprobation of it, and no punishment of it, so far, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who, in this clause, acknowledged a measure sought for the persecution of Irish journals who would be ashamed to publish such incitements to treason, assassination, and murder as this, which was published within the reach 1864 of his own hand in the City of London.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was well known ho had little sympathy with the course which hon. Members below the Gangway were pursuing; but he had road the Oath of Allegiance, and it was the duty of every Member of that House, whenever he could procure evidence of treasonable intentions against Her Majesty, or against any member of the Royal Family, to denounce in that House all such publications as had been quoted by the hon. Member for the purpose of inducing its suppression. If the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) had reason to believe that the words he had cited, utterly treasonable as they were, had appeared in an English newspaper, he had a perfect right, and, indeed, was bound by his Oath, to denounce that paper.
§ MR. O'DONNELLthought the hon. Member for Westmeath had done public service by calling attention to the tolerance which the Home Secretary extended to treason in England. The only argument of the Home Secretary in favour of the unamended condition of the clause which his hon. Friend sought to amend, was that he desired to have powers to seize such documents as he had read to the House on a previous night. The document which the Home Secretary read last night was an extract from an Irish Conservative newspaper; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman could very easily get at Irish Conservative newspapers without searching the homes of the Irish peasantry. He had, however, only interposed to express his regret that while the Committee was engaged in the calm discussion of this Amendment, and with a business-like desire to put forward objections and arguments against the clause, the Home Secretary had intervened to cast oil on the troubled waters in his own inimitable manner. He thought the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman might not interfere with the rapid progress of Business.
§ MR. SEXTONasked what more was wanted if the Government were able to seize arms, papers, and documents? If they could seize records and correspondence of secret societies, what could the wildest imagination conceive it was necessary to seize beyond them? Under this clause, they might seize even the 1865 furniture of a house, and, perhaps, set up as dealers in old furniture; but he supposed that was not the intention of the Government.
§ MR. PARNELLasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would meet the suggestion to leave out "instruments or articles," in order to avoid a division?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there were some articles which it was very necessary to seize, such, for instance, as crape masks.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to know whether the police would proceed to read all the murderous placards—all the documents and papers found on the premises; and would a responsible officer decide on the spot, before proceeding to arrest a person, whether or not the documents discovered were illegal? What he meant was this. Would the documents be read, and would a decision be come to by the search officer as to their legality or illegality before they were seized, and before the person in whose house they were found or their owner was arrested?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that under this clause it was not proposed to seize persons at all.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 30: Majority 145.—(Div. List, No. 162.)
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that as he thought it was desirable that they should come at once to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Richard Power), which were of great importance, and as his (Mr. Healy's) Amendments had practically been decided by the vote that had been taken, he would not move those Amendments.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment he had to propose, which was to the effect that the search officer should communicate to the head of the force to which he belonged the reason why he made a search. He considered it to be desirable that at Dublin Castle there should be a record of the number of searches made. Some inconvenience had been experienced by the House through the want of such information 1866 in regard to the operation of a similar clause in the Act of 1870.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 19, after the word "Majesty," to insert the words "Provided, That the officer who conducts a search shall in every case forward a report to the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, setting forth the cause of the search and its results."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this was a provision that he had never heard of in any search clauses before. It was impossible, in an Act of this kind, that all the grounds of suspicion, and all the details of the search, should be set forth.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that he had never heard of a Proviso of this kind; but if he would turn back to Subsection 2 of Clause 9 he would find these words—
The said justice may for good cause discharge a person so committed, and in any case shall forthwith transmit a report of the committal to the Lord Lieutenant stating the grounds of the committal, the security required, and any explanation given by the prisoner by way of defence. The Lord Lieutenant may order the prisoner to be discharged if it seems just to him so to do.As he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) understood it—he had not seen the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and had only heard it read—it seemed similar to this sub-section. He took it for granted that the Government had very good reason for putting this Sub-section 2 in Clause 9—that they did not do it without sufficient ground. He supposed that the idea was that the necessity of supplying this report to the Lord Lieutenant would act in some way as a restraint upon the capricious arrest of strangers. His hon. Friend proposed what was practically the same as Sub-section 2 of Clause 9—namely, that a Police Inspector or Sub-Inspector should use the powers of the clause, and give a report in every case in which he used the powers to the Inspector General of Constabulary. Well, such a document would be confidential. It was not a document that would have to be laid before Parliament, and simply would provide that the power should not be used capriciously. It appeared to him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) a very reasonable proposal.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the reason the provision was inserted in Clause 9 was that the clause was a power against the person. It was provided in that clause that if persons arrested did not give security for good behaviour or to keep the peace he should be imprisoned for one month. In order that the Lord Lieutenant could discharge such a prisoner, if it was thought desirable, it was necessary that a subsection of this kind requiring a report to be submitted should be inserted in the clause. A clause similar to the present with regard to search for firearms was inserted in the Bill of last year. When, under that Bill, a policeman entered a house and searched for and seized arms, no such report as was now referred to was thought of.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had rightly read this subsection. The words were—
The said justice may for good cause discharge a person so committed, and in any case shall forthwith transmit a report of the committal to the Lord Lieutenant.That was to say, whether the prisoner was committed or discharged. It was necessary that this report should be laid before the Lord Lieutenant, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, because His Excellency might have to discharge the prisoner; but, under this clause, this might occur where a prisoner had been discharged, and, therefore, where he was not seeking any clemency. The precedent of last year could scarcely be quoted in favour of the stringent regulation of the present clause. The clause of the Act of last year was of a comparatively mild character compared with this, for the reason that the person against whom the warrant was to be issued had to be mentioned in the warrant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be entirely following out the sub-section of Clause 9 by agreeing to this Amendment.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member was not correct in saying that the report had to be furnished to the Lord Lieutenant under Clause 9, whether the prisoner was committed or discharged. The sub-section said—
And in any case shall forthwith transmit a report of the committal to the Lord Lieutenant stating the grounds of the committal.1868 No report at all would be sent unless there was a committal, for the clause said the Lord LieutenantMay order the prisoner to he discharged if it seems just to him so to do.The words "in any case" only referred to the committal, not to the discharge. If a person was discharged there would be no report. In the Act of 1847 no such words as these were contained.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he must take exception to the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman read the subsection. A man might be committed and then discharged, and then a report would have to sent to the Lord Lieutenant.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought some provision of this kind would be very reasonable. He supported the clause generally, because it seemed to him it was necessary to have some check upon the police, to prevent the possibility of their making searches without sufficient grounds—it was desirable to have a record of the proceeding. He quite agreed that to make public the grounds upon which the search was made would have the effect of defeating the object of the clause; but he certainly thought that some Departmental and private report of the grounds and of the suspicion should be made. Such report would not interfere with the object of the clause, and he trusted that something of that kind would be agreed to.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary mean to say that he was going to supply a Sub-Inspector or an Inspector of police with what were practically blank warrants to search wherever he pleased, without requiring any record of those searches to be returned? Was he going to allow these policemen to travel over the country at their own goodwill, without the knowledge of the Government or their superiors, and to search the house of any individual in the town and district in which they might reign? Was that so? If it were, it would be well for the Government to say it plainly, and not to be wearing a Constitutional mask. Let them establish their benevolent despotism openly—let them confer openly on their subordinates all the privileges and powers of despotism; but if they meant, 1869 even colourably, to rest under the sanction of Constitutional government, the House had a right to ask that when an agent of the Executive performed such an act as to search a man's house at night, or even in the day, some record of that action should be kept. Such records would be found even in Russia, not to speak of England. At least, the Irish people had a right to demand that they should be granted the liberty that was allowed to the subjects of Russia. If this clause were passed in its present form, what would be the result? Why, to confer on every Sub-Inspector in Ireland—and many of these officers were mere boys, without any experience either of government or of the world—the right of entering the house of any man in Ireland, at any hour, and under any circumstances that might please him, and turn that house upside down, without making the slightest report or record of his action. Was that a state of things the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would desire to see established in Russia or in Turkey? If he would not, at least they had a right to demand that he should not be a party establishing such a state of things in Ireland; they had a right to demand that the Government would, at least, afford them the protection that would be offered by a foreign army in occupation, in the carrying on of actual hostilities, for the security of persons living in the country—he would not say of subjects, but simply of human beings. At least, in the present age, it would be almost impossible to find in the records of contemporary history such a power conferred on a Military Governor, in an Act passed during a time of hostilities, as that which would be conferred on the Irish police under the present Bill. Well, this being so, he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He maintained that this record ought not to be confidential. It ought to be a public document. It ought to be a document that they in that House would have a right to examine. It ought to be a document within the reach of the House; but it appeared that this Government—this Liberal Government—was not prepared even to compel its subordinate officers to make a report to their superiors. Such a thing was simply monstrous. What was the Government establishing 1870 but a system of legalized brigandage? What were they converting their police into? Why, into a body of legalized brigands—they could not call them the mere executive officers of a civilized government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary smiled. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had little sympathy with civilized government. He would be more in his place as a Turkish Pasha than as an English Minister. He thought, on those conditions, the Government would do well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this clause had been known for several years, and had not produced the terrible effects which were supposed to follow upon it. This clause had existed in Ireland in nearly the same form from the year 1847. Of course, the police performed the functions thrown upon them, and they reported to their superiors in the manner which their superiors directed, and not according to Act of Parliament. There was no Act of Parliament which directed what kind of reports the police should or should not make to their superiors. That matter was left entirely to the police authorities. Any policeman in London, upon suspicion of felony, could arrest any Member of that House, or anyone else, and would make such report to his superiors of the circumstances of the case as his superiors directed him to make. That would be precisely the same with regard to Ireland in cases of search.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, it was useless for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the practice in England was the same as in Ireland. He might imagine that the similarity was sufficient for the purpose of launching that sophistry upon the House; but he ventured to say that no Member of the Government would agree with him in the statement he had made. His hon. Friend proposed to place a check on the officer making search; and in doing so he asked nothing more than, in his opinion, ought to be conceded, even although the right hon. and learned Gentleman might not see that it was absolutely necessary. The clause they were engaged in discussing was a very stringent one, and it would only be consistent with good policy and expediency that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give way to 1871 Irish Members on points which did not interfere with the principle of the Bill. He could not see how such a Proviso as that proposed by his hon. Friend could interfere with the efficiency of the clause. If the Bill was to become law, he was anxious that it should work with the least possible amount of ill-feeling; and he ventured to say that the Proviso of the hon. Member for Sligo would tend in that direction.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the Rules of Criminal Procedure in India were regulated by laws drawn up by an eminent body of jurists; but the regulations of the Indian police would require that a record should be made of the kind now asked for, and he trusted that the Government would issue proper orders with regard to police reports in cases of search in Ireland, there being a great deal of natural jealousy with regard to the way in which this power would be exercised. He thought the Government would do well to accept the Amendment, which would not interfere with the efficiency of those powers.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to ask what were the regulations at the present time with regard to the reports of policemen in the case of searches for arms? But the Department of the Constabulary required the Inspectors to make reports with regard to those searches, and they showed what were the details required to be given in those reports.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had already stated that in these matters there could be no doubt whatever that the rules of the Irish police were exactly similar to those of the English police. Hon. Members seemed to suppose that this was a kind of special legislation for Ireland; but that was not the ease, because there were already very stringent clauses relating to search in the English Statutes—in the Smuggling Acts, the Explosives Act, and others. It was entirely a matter of police discipline how or in what manner the police were to report to their superiors.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that reports were made, and it was difficult to understand why he was unable to give the information ho had asked with regard to the reports made at the present time by the police in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have misunderstood his question. He 1872 had simply asked whether reports were made in cases of search under the Act of 1881. He asked whether the reports were made by Inspectors or Sub-Inspectors carrying out these searches to the Constabulary Department in Dublin; what was the nature of those reports; and what were the details they were supposed to give. He asked for this information, because it would be a guide to Irish Members as to whether or not they should press this Amendment upon the Government. If it were not the custom of the Inspector General in Ireland to insist upon these reports being given with regard to the right of search applied under the Act of 1881, that would be a reason for pressing the Amendment of his hon. Friend upon the attention of the Government.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, ho could not answer as to the particular form of the reports which the officer executing the warrant would make to his superior officers.
§ MR. SEXTONasked whether the officer reported why he made the search, and what he found on the premises? These were two essential points. It was desirable to know whether the suspicions of the police were justified or not by the result, and whether, in making the search, the police had conducted themselves properly. Irish Members were in possession of very little information upon this subject; and ho was unwilling, for his own part, to allow the matter to rest on the will of the officer of Dublin Castle. He wanted it to depend not upon the will of a Dublin Castle official, but upon the will of the House of Commons. He wished it to be made clear that a person who neglected his duty by not furnishing a report would be guilty, not only of a breach of discipline, but guilty in law.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, if these matters were reported by the police to their immediate superiors, even if the communication were confidential so far as the police were concerned, he could not see what objection the Government could have to placing that information before the House. If the police proceeded to make their search upon reasonable ground, what objection could the Government have to laying the reports upon the Table? The object of the Amendment was that a report should be made to the Inspector General in such a man- 1873 ner that it should he available for Members of that House. He said that the view that these reports should be confidential was not a sound view. The report should be of a nature that hon. Members should be able to reach it, and be able to judge as to whether the conduct of a particular police officer in making a search was justified or not. That was the only protection they could have against the abuse of the power conferred on the police under this Act, and that was exactly the point which had been evaded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that these reports were made by the police to their superiors. Then, were those reports of a nature which would afford any protection whatever to the liberty of the subject? It was not sufficient to say that a report was made by the police to their immediate superiors. They well knew in Ireland what was the value of these reports, and how little protection they afforded the innocent people. It was for that reason that Irish Members desired to import into this clause such a protection for the liberty of the subject that no subordinate officials should be able to use this Act for the purpose of tyranny, or as an engine of oppression against persons towards whom they had a personal spite. That was the object sought by this Amendment, but which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not dealt with.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had not met the case. Although he had stated that the regulations of the police force, with regard to the reports which they made to their superiors, were the same in the case of Ireland and England, he (Mr. Dawson) was obliged to point out that the two systems were entirely dissimilar.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTAllow me to say that the Dublin police and the Metropolitan police are in this respect exactly upon the same footing.
§ MR. DAWSONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just made use of the only exception which existed, and had thereby proved his rule.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had set forth the desirability of having some documents which would be within 1874 the knowledge of Parliament, and subject either to its approval or censure. If an Amendment were put forward for the purpose of securing that object, he should feel it his duty to give it his support. But that was not the ground taken up by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department knew very well, the proposal was that the Inspector should send in a report of the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary setting forth the causes of search. His hon. Friend thought that these words would have the effect of putting a check upon the action of police officers; and he challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or any of his Colleagues, to show in what way the adoption of the Amendment could possibly prejudice the operation of the clause. If, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the rules of the Service already required a report to be made, what harm could there be in inserting the words proposed by his hon. Friend in the clause? It was hardly worth while, at that time of the morning, seeing that in the course of a few hours they should be again engaged in the weary work of discussing this Bill, to reject words which could neither be said to be necessary nor superfluous.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 127: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 163.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. P. Martin.)
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he desired to make a few remarks with regard to what had occurred at the commencement of the evening. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had made a statement which, he said, he hoped and believed would greatly shorten the discussion on this clause. It was a most important statement, and a construction was at once put on it—a construction which he hoped and believed was erroneous—by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), who said that, after the concession that had been made, it was unnecessary to proceed with the Amendment. This happened at half-past 1875 9 o'clock; and he (Mr. Pluuket) wished to put it on record that from half-past 9 to half-past 1 in the morning they had been discussing this matter without any reference whatever to the concession made by the Prime Minister. This appeared to him to be an instructive illustration of the advantage of such concessions to hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House below the Gangway. Well, he (Mr. Plunket) wished to say just a word or two on the present aspect of the debate. The interpretation hon. Members below the Gangway, as he had said, had put on the words of the Prime Minister was that, under this clause, no search for arms or secret apparatus of murder was to be made at night, and that, therefore, if the Constabulary, under this clause, entered a house to discover an illegal meeting which they suspected was being held, if no illegal meeting was being held at that moment, although all these things, these secret apparatus of murder, and these documents were there, the officers could not seize them. Such a concession would render the clause useless, and would make the discussions which had taken place upon it nothing but a farce. He did not wish to undervalue the seriousness of a right of search, and it was a very important matter to give such a right at all. Unfortunately, it had often been necessary to give such powers in Ireland. In quiet times they had been relaxed; but, as hon. Members must be aware, times were no longer quiet in that country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Homo Secretary himself, in serious, eloquent, and clear words, had referred to this clause in introducing the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken under the shadow of a great crime, and at that time he perfectly remembered that it was said by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House that they would not do anything to interfere with the law enacted for the purpose of preventing such terrible atrocities as those which had just then taken place in Ireland. The Home Secretary had referred to this clause as most essential. He said—
The first of these provisions is one, I think, that the House will see is most necessary. It is a power to search for the secret apparatus of murder, for the daggers, for the documents, for the threatening letters, for the crape masks, 1876 which are hidden, and which the police cannot reach; and unless the police have the power to enter houses and look for them, the persons who make use of these apparatus possess practical immunity. This clause of search—which will be pointed directly to these secret societies, these unlawful combinations—will be practically the clause of the Act of 1870. The search will take place by day or by night."—[3 Hansard, eclxix. 468.]This was the meaning put deliberately upon this clause by the Minister in charge of the Bill. Let them, then, consider the consequences if this construction of the hon. Member for Wexford was to be put on the Prime Minister's words, and if the alteration suggested was to be made in the clause. At present there was, no doubt, a power to search houses for arms during the day time; and the only effect of this clause, when amended as proposed, would be to add to the power already existing the power of search for documents. [Mr. HEALY: During the night.] No, during the day. That was to say, that these persons—"Captain Moonlight" and his gang—could walk about all the day with these illegal documents, and could come home at night and sleep comfortably with these things scattered about their houses, the police having no power to search for them. It was absurd for the Committee to be spending a whole night in passing such a clause. And, with regard to illegal meetings, was it to be supposed that if the clause passed in the form suggested, they would ever be likely to discover any of these documents? If the interpretation which hon. Members had put upon the Prime Minister's words were correct, it would come to this—that a policeman would go into a place where he suspected an illegal meeting was taking place, but that if no meeting was at the time actually in session, although all these documents might be lying about, nothing could be done. He was sure whatever advice had been given by the Lord Lieutenant, who was responsible for the peace of Ireland, on these matters, it could not have been advice which would have supported such a construction as that being placed upon the clause.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he knew very well that at this time of night it was no use to resist such a Motion as that which had been made; and he very much concurred with the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. 1877 Plunket) in what he had said as to the practical lesson which was to be learned with regard to the value of concessions to the Irish Party below the Gangway opposite. During the progress of this Bill there had been no clause upon which the Opposition had been more obstinate, and, if he might be allowed to say so, more unjustifiable, and that in spite of the promises which had been made by those hon. Members. As to the construction which the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite said the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and some others had placed on the statement of the Prime Minister, all he could say was that if they placed that construction upon it he could not agree in that construction, and he felt sure that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not concur in it either. It had been said that it was quite plain that hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side had not placed that construction upon it, or else they would have followed the corollary to the declaration, and would not have continued to obstruct the clause. He thought, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) need not alarm himself that any such construction as that referred to was the construction which it was intended should be placed upon it, if such, indeed, was really seriously entertained by anyone.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he was in the House when the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had put that construction upon the words of the Prime Minister to which reference had been made; and he had heard the Prime Minister, in reply to the hon. Member, get up and declare that the construction that had been put upon what he had said was correct. The Home Secretary might not have been in the House at the time; but whether he was or not he certainly did not correctly understand the meaning the Prime Minister put on his own words. As, however, there was a doubt in the matter, it seemed to him (Captain Aylmer) that it would be desirable that the Amendment which was to be introduced into the clause should be put on the Paper as early as possible, and that in the form of a Proviso which could be discussed in Committee, so that it would not be necessary to leave the matter over until Report. The Prime 1878 Minister agreed with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), although the Home Secretary thought differently. At any rate, the Committee should be allowed to discuss the question.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, there was much force in what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer). He hoped they were not to see in the attitude taken up by the Home Secretary anything like a break up in the Cabinet. They had heard a deal that night as to the differences in the Cabinet. With regard to the construction to be placed upon the words of the Prime Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone came forward as an impartial witness. It was a pity that the Home Secretary had not thought it his duty to come down to the House at 9 o'clock, when other hon. Members were in their places—at any rate, it might have been expected from him that he would have made himself acquainted with the opinion of his official Chief. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, did not seem to think it necessary to make himself acquainted with the views of his Leader. It was too much—far-reaching in their sweep as the powers of the right hon. Gentleman might be—it was too much that the Home Secretary should usurp the functions of the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Healy) did not think that even the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) would be prepared to say that he would roll into one the functions of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. The Irish Members stood on the declaration of the Prime Minister, and they thought it of the utmost necessity that they should have the right hon. Gentleman's words in black and white—that they should have the independent reports of the newspapers, so that they might see what construction was to be placed upon the words which had been used, and what gloss had been put on them. Tomorrow they would see in black and white, in type as conceived by the newspaper reporters, what the right hon. Gentleman had said; and then they would know, in all probability, whether there really was, as had been alleged so often, a serious schism in the Cabinet with regard to this Bill. It was rumoured, in a hundred shapes and forms, that the Cabinet were divided on this Bill; and 1879 what had occurred to-night was an admirable illustration of the truth of those rumours. They found the Home Secretary coming here at 2 o'clock in the morning and endeavouring to eat the words uttered by the Prime Minister at 9 o'clock in the evening. The Prime Minister's words were interpreted not only by the Irish Members, but by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer), and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), in a sense entirely opposite to the view taken of them by the Home Secretary. They had all these people backing up the Prime Minister, and then they had the Home Secretary, with his grandiloquent announcement, with his full-blown emphasis, declaring that the Prime Minister did not mean what he had said.
MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he fully concurred in the desirability of having those portentous words of the Prime Minister put into black and white. A great many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House had made up their minds as to what action they would take with regard to them; and he should not be doing justice to his own strong conviction if he did not express, as clearly as he could, the astonishment and dismay with which, at an earlier hour, he had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister as to the concession he proposed to make. It was, as he (Mr. G. Russell) was perfectly well aware, a matter of serious responsibility for a single Member of that House to separate himself, even for a moment, from a proposition made by the Head of the Government and recommended by the Viceroy of Ireland and the Chief Secretary. But much more weight was to be attached to the opinion of the right hon. and learned Home Secretary, who had charge of the conduct of this Bill; and, in spite of the consensus of authority recommending the concession which had been referred to, it was a matter of very serious regret to some of them that such concession should have been made. Ho was not, at that hour of the night, going to enter into any discussion as to the reasons which had led them to regard this clause with reference to the right of search as the very core and kernel of the Bill. They had evidence all around them of 1880 the sporadic character of the maladies which this measure was intended to grapple with, and of these maladies having developed in the profoundest secrecy. It seemed to many of them that the right of search contained in the Bill was the right and the power that would do more than any other provision of the measure to cope with these secret machinations of crime; and it was, therefore, a matter of astonishment and most profound regret to them to hear that any concession, however slight, was to be made on these clauses conferring the right of search. They had heard, however, that the Prime Minister's words were not to be interpreted as offering a concession. On the other hand, it was said—and ho had taken down the hon. Member's words—that 80 or 90 per cent of the clause had been conceded. That was surely a very alarming announcement from an Irish Member, and if that opinion was universally entertained by the Irish Members—and those Gentlemen, no doubt, were most competent to form an opinion upon it—it seemed to him (Mr. G. Russell) that the concession already stood condemned. He would not enter into the reasons which had induced himself, and those who believed as ho did, to give their most cordial support to this clause in its entirety; but he could not refrain from expressing a hope that the moment was not far distant when Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the transactions of this evening, would learn that every act of concession to Irish disloyalty—and ho did not say that concession in the interests of justice and mercy were not necessary, but every unnecessary concession—was the signal for a fresh outbreak of stematic and insolent obstruction in the House, and, too often, of outrageous crime out-of-doors.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he should be glad when hon. Members would be able to see the actual words of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government in print. It was perfectly clear to his mind that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) could not have placed the construction it was said he had placed upon the words of the Premier. [Mr. HEALY: Yes; I did.] The hon. Member seemed to be positive, so positive that he could not believe his (Mr. Samuelson's) statement; but ho would give his reason for what 1881 he had said. The hon. Member had stated, immediately after the Premier's speech, that if he was right in the construction he put upon the words which had fallen from the Prime Minister, he would not support a single Amendment to the clause; that he would urge his hon. Friends to withdraw their Amendments, and that he would go into the opposite Lobby to any hon. Member who opposed the section; and yet the hon. Member had voted for almost, if not quite, every Amendment, and he had been, perhaps, the most prominent opponent of the clause. The hon. Member had thus proved, by his own action, that he, at any rate, did not attach to the Prime Minister's words the important meaning which it was now sought to give them. If the hon. Member for Wexford thought that the Premier's words bore that meaning, what confidence could they, for the future, place in any promise of the hon. Member?
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had repudiated the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had uttered in his absence.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had not repudiated what the Prime Minister had said at any time. It would be most unbecoming in him to do such a thing. What he did repudiate was the interpretation which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had put upon the words of the right hon. Gentleman, or the interpretation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had said the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had placed upon the words of the Prime Minister.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it would be desirable for him to inform the Home Secretary what had taken place in his (Sir William Harcourt's)absence. When the Prime Minister, at the commencement of the proceedings this evening on the subject of this clause, took occasion to describe the effect of the sub-section which he proposed should be introduced into the clause on Report, in order that there should be no misapprehension or misunderstanding as to what that subsection was, he (Mr. Parnell) had taken the precaution to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would provide certain things, and the Prime Minister replied that it would. He would repeat 1882 to the Home Secretary the question he had put to the Prime Minister. He had asked whether they were to understand that the sub-section he proposed to produce on Report would provide that there should be no night search unless there was a suspicion that there was a secret society or a secret association actually sitting or carrying on its proceedings on the premises searched, and that when it was found that no such secret society, or secret association, was at the time carrying on its business, there should be no search? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that the sub-section he proposed to introduce would be to that effect. And now, with regard to this Motion to report Progress, he (Mr. Parnell) wished to say he really thought the Homo Secretary had been standing in the way of the progress of the Bill. There had been no Amendments proposed to-night except those which had been of a very reasonable character. The Amendment they had just divided upon was an Amendment of a most reasonable character; and to show the way in which the Home Secretary met them, he would remind the Committee that he had stated that under the English Acts—he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had mentioned the Explosives Act—no provision was made for reports from policemen to their superior officers in cases of suspicion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the reports the police were to make were merely matters of discipline, and were regulated by the police authorities, and not by Act of Parliament. However, he (Mr. Parnell) found, under the Explosives Act, 28 Vict., c. 17—he believed at Section 73 —that—
Where a search is made without the authority of a warrant, if the entry he by an officer specially authorized by written authority other than a warrant, a report of such proceedings shall be forthwith sent to the Secretary of State.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThat is the case of a warrant.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it was the case of a warrant authorizing search, not in a particular instance, but in a whole district.
§ MR. O'KELLYA general warrant.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it was a general statement. In the case of the Explosives Act it was left to the Constabulary 1883 authorities to say where a report should be made, and where it should not be made. In the Act he referred to there was a provision compelling a report not only to the Central Constabulary authority, which hon. Members asked for under this clause, but to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary himself.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.