§ MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-on-Tyne)I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland two Questions of which I have given him private Notice. They refer to the Proclamations which have been issued in Ireland. I wish to ask him, Whether anything has happened to explain the extension of these Proclamations over almost the whole of Ireland, since his assurance given to the House that there are parts of Ireland in which the law is at this moment as well obeyed as in any part of the United Kingdom; and, secondly, I wish to ask him, in view of the assurances then given by the late Attorney General for Ireland, that the proceedings of the Privy Council were of a purely formal character, how 1897 it was that Mr. Justice Monroe and three other judicial personages attended, or are alleged to have attended, the proceedings on Saturday?
MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice. Is it true, as stated in The Times of this day, that a meeting of the Irish Privy Council was held in Dublin Castle on Saturday afternoon, at which were present General His Serene Highness the Prince of Saxe Weimar, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Chief Secretary, the Vice Chancellor, the right hon. J. T. Ball, L.L.D., and Mr. Justice Monroe; whether the meeting lasted two hours, during which the Privy Council were chiefly occupied in drawing up the Proclamations necessary for putting the Crimes Act into operation; whether the Vice Chancellor and Mr. Justice Monroe are both members of the Irish Judicial Bench; whether Mr. Justice Monroe was sworn a Member of the Irish Privy Council after his elevation to the Bench; whether the Government stated, through the mouth of the late Attorney General for Ireland, now Mr. Justice Holmes, on the 15th June, 1887, that it was not intended to consult the Members of the Irish Judiciary in reference to the administration of the Crimes Bill; and, finally, whether the right hon. Gentleman has any, and if so, what explanation for this departure from the understanding on which the Crimes Act was passed; and, whether he has any reason, and if so, what reason, for converting the Irish Judiciary into agents of the Executive Government?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)I have to say that it is true that the Privy Council, as named in the Question by the hon. Member (Mr. Mac Neill), were present on Saturday. It is true that a large portion of the business done related to the Proclamations to be issued under the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act. It is not, I think, true, as far as I recollect, that the Council sat for two hours, but it is true that they sat for a considerable time, not because they were occupied during the time in consultation, for there was no consultation. There was no consultation—as I will explain in one moment. The delay 1898 arose out of some clerical errors which had been committed in the Proclamations. Then I am asked, whether Mr. Justice Monroe was sworn a Member of the Privy Council after his elevation to the Judicial Bench? That, I believe, is true, though it does not appear to be very relevant to the remainder of the Question. Then, as to whether it was stated in this House by the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) that it was not intended to consult the Judges with reference to the administration of the Crimes Bill, I may reply that the Judges were not consulted upon that subject. As the House is aware, the assembling of the Privy Council to conduct business of this kind is of a purely formal character. It is intended to give, and it does give, solemnity to the action of the Executive. But neither in Ireland nor in England is it the custom to debate questions when anything is done by the Privy Council gathered in that manner; and, therefore, whether it be right or not right that the Judges should be present on an occasion of that sort, it is strictly true that the Government did not consult the Judges with reference to the administration of the Act. That, I think, deals with the whole of that part of the Question. Then the hon. Member asks my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he has any explanation for this departure from the understanding arrived at; but, as I have just told the hon. Member, there has been no departure from the understanding.
MR. MAC NEILLWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question, as to whether there was any, and, if so, what, reason for converting the Irish Judiciary into agents of the Executive Government? They were not there to be consulted.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman refers me to an understanding on the faith of which he says the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act was passed, and which he quotes in the preceding paragraph of his Question. That understanding, as I have already said, has not been broken. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) asks me whether I have any reason to alter my opinion that parts of Ireland are as peaceful as any part of England? No, Sir. I have no 1899 reason to alter my opinion on that subject. What we have done with regard to the Proclamations under the Act is to apply Sub-section 3 of Clause 2 to Ireland generally. Sub-section 3 consists of three sub-heads. Sub-head A deals with rioting and unlawful assembly. That has already, by the action of Parliament, been made universal in Ireland, irrespective of any Proclamation; and the original form of the Amendment by which it was made universal irrespective of any Proclamation, moved by some hon. Gentleman from Ireland below the Gangway, was that the whole of Sub-section 3 should be made applicable, irrespective of Proclamations, to the whole of Ireland. I have carried out roughly the intention which the hon. Member appears to have had when he put the Amendment on the Paper. Sub-section B relates to the taking or holding by forcible possession. That is clearly not a sub-head which can, by any circumstances, be abused. It is a specific and definite offence, and if it takes place in any part of Ireland, in my opinion it ought to be dealt with effectively. With regard to Sub head C, that relates to obstructing the police, and it assimilates the law of Ireland to the existing law of England in that respect. Therefore, when I said that there were parts of Ireland which were as quiet as any part of England, by inference it may be understood that it would be a judicious course to assimilate the law in that respect. The House will see that the only part of the Act which has been made general throughout Ireland is that single sub-section of that single clause.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)As to the provision in Clause 5, that the Lord Lieutenant may, when it appears necessary, by Proclamation declare the provisions of the Act which relate to proclaimed districts, I should like to ask whether the Irish Executive made any classification in their own mind of the counties in which it was necessary to prevent, and those in which it is necessary to punish crime?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIn every case in which we have proclaimed under the Act, generally, any county in Ireland, we have done so because we have believed, either from the actual existence of crime or intimidation, the Act was necessary. No counties have been pro- 1900 claimed generally under the Bill where crime does not exist, if by crime is included, as it certainly ought to be, intimidation.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEYAre we to understand that, by the law of England, a person who commits an offence under Sub-head B of Sub-section 3 is liable to be tried by summary jurisdiction?
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)Without appeal?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt was Subsection 3 to which I referred.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman on Saturday, in company with the Judges, proclaimed the whole of Ireland to be subjected to this provision—namely,
That any person who, within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land, shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land, or any part thereof, shall be punishable with six months' imprisonment by order of the Resident Magistrate.Now, I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say that in any part of England such a thing can be done, and, if he cannot say that, will he say why he applies a law not applicable in England to any part of Ireland, which is as peaceable as England according to his own statement?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have treated Sub-section 3 as a whole; and the right hon. Gentleman will notice, as I have before said, that this, which, I believe, is a purely Irish form of crime, is one which certainly ought to be punished wherever it exists.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTLet me recall to the right hon. Gentleman's mind the fact that these words are perfectly applicable. [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] I strongly advise hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches not to object to my asking these questions, or else they may drive us to further extremities. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] They seem to think that it is a very light matter. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] If hon. Gentlemen are silent, I will not make these observations; but if they will endeavour to interrupt me, I must do so. [Cries of "Go on!"] I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that, under this Act, this Sub-section B, which really amounts only to a question 1901 of trespass, or resistance to expulsion from a tenement, ought, to be applied to portions of Ireland which are perfectly peaceable?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR; I believe the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his law. It does not apply to trespass.
§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)asked whether the County of Kilkenny had been proclaimed, and whether the sole outrage there during the last quarter had been one case of an alleged threatening letter?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat is the case; Kilkenny is proclaimed; but I cannot, without Notice, give statistics as to offences.
§ MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)asked, whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland, under cover of an Order of the Privy Council, had not done what the House in Committee had refused?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is not true that I have done by an Order in Council what the House has refused.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would state accurately what had been done in reference to the Proclamations?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have already explained what has been done with regard to Ireland generally. [A VOICE: Antrim.] Antrim is included in what has been done with regard to Ireland generally, of course. The counties proclaimed under the whole Act are Clare, Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Kilkenny, King's County, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Mayo, Monaghan, Queen's County, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary, Waterford, and Wexford. The counties and cities of Dublin, Belfast, Carrickfergus, Cork, Drogheda, Galway, Londonderry, and Waterford have not been proclaimed under the Act generally, but only under Sub-section C.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could state, in the case of Donegal, which had been proclaimed, what cases of intimidation he had discovered in that county?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think it would be most inconvenient to give statistics of this sort in regard to the different counties in the way of question and answer; but if the hon. Member desires information on any point, he can put a Question on the Paper.
§ MR. SEXTONasked, whether Done, gal and Monaghan, the only Ulster counties proclaimed generally, had been so proclaimed because they returned Nationalist Members?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat is not the reason. There is no connection between the two circumstances.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)asked, whether, in some of the counties proclaimed the Judges of the recent Assizes had been presented with white gloves, in consequence of the absence of cases to try?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI must ask for Notice of the Question for Thursday.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to give a statement to the House showing accurately what had been done under the Proclamations, so that the people of Ireland might not have to grope their way through these Proclamations?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think that would be convenient, and I will have it done.