HL Deb 22 February 1833 vol 15 cc1093-8
Earl Grey

said, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill for the better administration of impartial justice in Ireland, which he had last night presented to their Lordships, and the object of which was to change the venue in certain cases in Ireland. This Bill rested upon the same grounds as that which had been just passed—namely, the disturbed state of Ireland, and the inadequacy of the law in its present state to provide for the security and good government of Ireland. He should not, therefore, detain their Lordships by a repetition of the various circumstances which he brought before them on introducing the Bill which had just passed. All measures of this kind depended upon the necessity of the case: and he should most readily agree with the noble Lord near him, who had spoken so fervently against these measures—that nothing could be more monstrous than such a proposition, if it were not justified by extreme and urgent necessity, and on that ground it was, and that ground only, that he rested his defence. If any man, looking to the state of Ireland, should think that the security of his Majesty's loyal subjects could be provided for, after the evidence already given, without additional powers of this nature, then he was certainly quite right to oppose them. On the contrary, those who thought these powers necessary, consented to exceed the law, only to prevent the subversion of all law—they supported this merely as a temporary measure, arising from an urgent and lamentable necessity. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite (Westmorland), he accepted his support with thankfulness, but he would not be moved by something very much like a taunt to recur to past transactions; he would merely observe, that circumstances might exist which would make a noble Lord unwilling at one time to agree to such a measure as that just passed, whilst at another he might feel, that the necessity for resorting to strong measures had arisen. There was no sentiment which he had expressed at any period of his political life which he did not still retain, and he must assure their Lordships that he had never executed a more painful duty than that which was imposed upon him by the necessity arising out of the state of Ireland to take strong measures for the preservation of peace. This Bill arose out of the same causes as the Bill for the Suppression of Disturbances in Ireland. It was a melancholy fact, that there existed in Ireland a system of intimidation which impeded the execution of all law, which prevented Juries from giving honest verdicts, prosecutors from coming forward to prosecute, and witnesses from declaring the troth. Under circumstances of this kind, it was now proposed to their Lordships that, whenever the necessity arose, the trial should be removed from the county where the offence had taken place, and that the cause should be tried either in the adjoining county, or in the city and county of the city of Dublin. The history of Ireland unfortunately furnished them with many precedents for a bill like this. The 11th and 12th George 3rd, in 1772, referred to all the Acts upon the subject, and there were several Acts during the reigns of George 2nd, and George 3rd. It was singular that at that time precisely the same species of offences were enumerated as the reasons for those acts as now prevailed, namely, attacking houses for arms, the infliction of severe bodily punishment upon those who resisted the daring violations of the law, the threats to compel the relinquishment of leases, and above all, the offences arising out of tithes. In the sixth section of the Act, the intimidation of Jurors, and the consequent increase of outrages, arising from a hope of impunity from that circumstance, was referred to as rendering necessary the change of the venue. In that Act, the venue could be only changed to Dublin, whereas, in the Bill before the House, it might be changed if practicable to the adjoining county. Another improvement in this Bill upon the former enactment was, that the venue could only be changed by the Court of King's Bench at the instance of the Attorney General, whilst for the security of the subject, a further power was given that it might be done at the instance of the party accused. He did not anticipate much difficulty in passing this Bill. With respect to its duration, it was limited to the same period as that which had just passed their Lordships' House. These being the principal provisions of the measure he would not trouble the House any further; but begged to conclude by moving that it be now read a second time.

The Earl of Wicklow

said, that there was no one sentence of the noble Earl's speech which he heard with so much pain as that the duration of this measure would be limited to the same period as that which had just passed their Lordships' House. He did not think the noble Earl could confer a greater benefit upon the country than by making that Bill permanent. He had hoped that the noble Earl would have consulted the Law-officers of the Crown in Ireland, as to the propriety of extending the duration of the Bill. He trusted, however, that he would consider his suggestion, otherwise he (the Earl of Wicklow) would move in the Committee that its duration should be extended to five years.

Earl Grey

entertained little doubt that it might be advantageously extended for a longer period, although at present he thought it would be better to limit its duration to the period he had named, and to bring it under the consideration of the House next Session, by which time they would have the experience of its operation.

Lord Ellenborough

did not rise to offer any opinion upon the duration of the Bill, but merely to offer an observation on a point that appeared to be agreed to by both sides of the House. Both sides seemed to wish that this restrictive measure should be removed as soon as the necessity for its existence should cease. Upon this point he begged to call the attention of the House to the observations of a man who was generally considered as one of the wisest of men. He meant Lord Bacon, who said; and certain it is, that nothing destroyeth authority so much as the unequal and untimely interchange of power pressed too far, and relaxed too much. He firmly believed, that as much injury was done to Ireland by taking off coercive measures too soon, as by imposing them too late. That country had been reduced to its present state by the policy or weakness on the part of successive Governments, a weakness excusable perhaps, as it arose from a desire not to alter the forms of the Constitution without an urgent necessity, and to return to it as soon as the necessity which justified the departure had ceased. He traced, in the conduct of all previous Governments, and he saw in the conduct of the present Ministers, on this occasion, this fatal consequence, that Ireland had been, and he feared would still be, placed in a state of alternation between permitted and unpunished lawlessness, and crime punished severely and unexpectedly. When such was the course of the Legislature, it tended much to destroy the respect that should be entertained for the laws, by giving to them the character of vindictiveness; and the people were consequently instigated to look upon their violation as no crime, and instigated to do what they pleased when an opportunity was afforded them. He was satisfied that this view of the case was correct, and that much of the lawlessness that existed in Ireland, and much of the demoralization in that country, flowed from this cause—that the course of justice was not equal—that lawlessness was permitted for a length of time; and when, at last, it was punished, it was punished with a severity which appeared to the criminals without justification, when they reflected upon their previous impunity.

Lord Wynford

was of opinion that it would be highly beneficial if a permanent measure was introduced into England and Ireland, giving the power to Judges to change the venue to the adjoining county, in any case they thought fit. Some means ought also to be adopted, in order to prevent the public money from being wasted in the shape of costs of witnesses, &c. Witnesses were very fond of jaunts; and the notion of going to Dublin, might be a great inducement to many to come forward. When witnesses were brought from a great distance—from Cork to Dublin, for instance—the expense was very great. At the same time, every opportunity should be given to prisoners to prove their innocence, and they should have all facilities of bringing witnesses, &c., but the public should not be imposed on.

Earl Grey

said, there was already a clause in the Bill which secured to the prisoner the fullest opportunity of bringing forward his witnesses, and at the same time allowed all reasonable expenses. Although he did not wish at present to extend the duration of the Bill, it was merely because he was desirous that time should be given for consideration, and that they might have some experience of its operation.

The Lord Chancellor

saw no objection to making a small part of the Bill permanent, that, namely, which changed the venue to the adjoining county. He fully concurred in the observations that had been made by the noble Baron respecting the evils that resulted from frequent changes in those laws which involve the dearest interests of the country. Undoubtedly all sudden relaxations on the one hand, and strict, rigorous provisions on the other, were equally to be avoided. But the present Bill, from its very outset and origin, proceeded on the fact that the absolute necessity of the case compelled its enactment. It should, therefore, be as short in its existence as was consistent with that necessity. When the moment should arrive that it would be possible to rescind it, the whole country would feel pleasure, but to none would its repeal be more gratifying than to his Majesty's Ministers, who on their responsibility had introduced the measure, though not until forced by a painful sad, and afflicting necessity. No one acquainted with the opinions and principles which they had maintained individually, as well as a body, and which it had been their pride to advocate, could doubt that they were most averse to the present Bill—most afflicted by the necessity that demanded it, and that they were anxious the day should arrive when that necessity would no longer exist. As to the duration of the Bill, that must be the subject of discussion in the next Session of Parliament.

Bill read a second time.