HL Deb 28 February 1850 vol 109 cc126-33
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE

moved the Second Reading of the Party Processions (Ireland) Bill. He said that as the Bill was one of considerable importance, and as it was of a restrictive nature, he did not think it would be proper for him to ask their Lordships' concurrence in it without stating in a very few words the reasons which had induced Her Majesty's Government to submit it for the consideration of Parliament. At the same time, having every reason to hope that this Bill would meet the unanimous approbation of their Lordships, as it had already received the unanimous approval of the other House of Parliament, it was not his intention to occupy their Lordships' time for more than a very few moments. Their Lordships were aware that in 1832 it was found necessary, in consequence of disturbances that had taken place at these processions, and the effect which they were found to have on the peace of the country, to introduce an Act for the suppression of all party processions in Ireland. That Act had been renewed from time to time, but it had been allowed to expire in 1845. It certainly was the intention of Government to introduce another measure in 1846; but so earnest a hope had been expressed by various parties that no such a Bill would thenceforth be found necessary, and that the state of the country was such as to admit of the disuse of such a law, in consequence of the improved good temper and good feeling which were beginning to prevail, that under these circumstances the matter was allowed to stand over to another time. But though he did not propose on this occasion to imitate the example of those, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants, who had been the authors or abettors of proceedings calculated to produce irritation and animosity between Her Majesty's subjects—though he did not intend to avail himself of this occasion to recall to their Lordships' attention anything that could awaken angry feeling, or renew differences of opinion—he wished to allude generally to the state of Ireland; to the inflammable nature of the feelings of the people in that portion of the united kingdom, produced as it had been by various causes, and liable as it was to be still called into action, inducing excited partisans heedlessly "to rush in where angels fear to tread;" and he was sure that, aware as their Lordships were of the prevalence of these feelings, they would at once concur in the propriety of passing this Bill into a law. The fact was, that so long as facilities existed in Ireland for celebrating, and more than celebrating, these party anniversaries, so long would that country he left open as an arena in which every passion—every absurd prejudice and feeling were brought together. By this Bill it was proposed to close the field against such displays. It did not differ materially from the former Bills, at the same time that it was somewhat more comprehensive; and unlike the former measures no period was prescribed at which the Act would terminate. If the period arrived when it would be found no longer necessary to continue in Ireland an Act which was not required in this country, the Government would no doubt be willing to consider the propriety of repealing the Act; but for the present he thought it much better that men's should not be unsettled by knowing that there was any fixed period whatever after which the old system of party processions could be restored.

LORD BROUGHAM

said, he entirely agreed in the propriety of having this Bill a permanent measure. He should at the same time like to know whether the prohibition was intended to be confined to armed processions. He thought that it would be much better to prohibit all processions whatever that tended to lead to breaches of the peace. The only processions that he would wish to allow were those at funerals.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE

was understood to answer in the negative.

The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH

briefly explained the provisions of the Bill. It prohibited armed processions, but not all processions. It prohibited processions with firearms and other offensive weapons, and with party badges, flags, and symbols, and with music playing party tunes, calculated to provoke animosity between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects; but it did not prohibit processions without arms or badges, or with inoffensive music. Under this Bill the Orangemen might again meet on the 12th of July, provided that they met without arms or badges, and with bands of music not playing such tunes as the "Boyne Water," or "Croppies lie down," but such tunes as "See the conquering hero," &c. He should be very happy if he could indulge in the sanguine expectations of the noble Marquess as to the success of this measure. He admitted that, when a similar measure was in existence, no Orange processions and no Riband processions were ever attempted. He hoped that the same result would be accomplished now. He thought that the unfortunate events which occurred at Dolly's Brae were a sufficient justification for the introduction of this Bill. He regretted, however, that the noble Marquess had not gone further into the details of it, in order to show the manner in which it differed from the Act which expired in 1845. This Bill created two misdemeanours. The first consisted in being present at a meeting or procession rendered by this Bill unlawful, and for that the person offending might be punished by indictment. The second consisted in not dispersing when the magistrates, after declaring its illegality, had ordered the meeting or procession to disperse, and for that he might be proceeded against in a summary way before two justices, and, being convicted, might be punished by a fine not exceeding 5l., or by imprisonment not exceeding one calendar month. In the Act of 1845 the magistrates had no option as to the extent of the imprisonment, therefore that Act was more stringent than the present. There was another point in the Bill which he must not pass over unnoticed, as he entertained some doubts about it. With regard to the second misdemeanour, no option was left to the magistrate; he must declare the meeting illegal, and after declaring it illegal, he must order its dispersion. Now, it was evident that there might be circumstances in which it would be inexpedient to disperse a meeting decidedly unlawful. There had been such meetings in England, aye, and in this metropolis too, in which he thought that the Government had exercised a sound discretion in not dispersing them, though notoriously illegal. He thought that the magistrates had acted rightly in not dispersing the two assemblies at Dolly's Brae; for to have attempted the dispersion of both would have led to a grand mêlée, and would have terminated in a greater sacrifice of human life than had actually taken place. In this Bill, he repeated, that the magistrate had no option, for it was obligatory on him to declare the meeting unlawful, and to disperse it. Now, if the magistrate had not a sufficient force with him to disperse it, he would only be bringing the law into contempt by issuing an order which he could not enforce. The last clause in the present Bill was not in the Act which had expired. It provided, that any person who should have been proceeded against in a summary way for not dispersing within a quarter of an hour after the reading of the notice to disperse, should not he indicted likewise for a misdemeanour for having been present at the unlawful assembly; but if he had not been proceeded against in a summary way, he might be indicted. Now, the unlawful act consisted in being present at such an assembly. The person ordered to disperse had committed a misdemeanour in being present, and for being present he might be liable to a greater punishment than for refusing to disperse. The question would therefore arise in the mind of such a man whether it was not better to disobey the notice and remain on the ground; for if he were punished summarily for the misdemeanour of not dispersing, he could not have more than a fine of 5l. or a month's imprisonment inflicted upon him; whereas, if he were indicted for being present at an unlawful meeting, he might be sentenced to a heavy fine and to imprisonment for 12, 16, 18 months, and even longer. He therefore thought that this clause should be more carefully considered. These meetings, besides, though unlawful under the Bill prohibiting meetings with arms and objectionable badges, banners, and music, might also be unlawful at common law from the great numbers composing them. He thought that nothing in this Act contained should prevent the proceeding at common law also against a person who might be punished summarily under this Act. He believed that as the Act stood, it would still be open to the Government so to proceed. But it was a matter lawyers might make speeches about, and juries might differ about, and it would be far bettor to render it clear by a proviso saving the common law.

The EARL of ST. GERMANS

said, that the Bill of 1832, introduced by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), was considered to apply only to the Orangemen, and to processions held on particular festivals, and much complaint was expressed at its not being applicable to the monster meetings held by the Repealers. The present Bill was also not intended to apply to all meetings and processions; and he believed that if the Ribandmen met on the 17th of March next, they might march legally through the country, provided they did so without arms, or banners and music, calculated to excite hostility among different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. He did not think that the phrase "different classes" was one that ought to be used in the Act. It was usually applied to the higher and lower orders, whereas, in the present instance, it was evidently intended to mean persons of different religious persuasions—a construction which he thought could not be properly put upon it. He thought the phrase "different religious persuasions" used in the former Act much preferable. As the Bill now stood, two meetings, one having "Free-trade," and the other "Protection," on their banners, would both be illegal—a construction which was clearly not intended to be conveyed by the Bill.

LORD CAMPBELL

collected that their Lordships were agreed on the necessity of a Party Processions Act, and that the common desire was to make it as effective as possible. It did not at present appear to him that any alteration would be necessary in this Bill, but all that had been said should be fully considered before it went to a third reading. It was framed almost entirely after the model of an Act which answered the object in view from 1832 to 1845. It was intended that with perfect impartiality processions of all sorts tending to produce a breach of the peace should be prohibited. It would be difficult to intro duce words more stringent than those inserted in this Bill, without including processions altogether innocent, such as of a school or a temperance society. He apprehended that upon the true construction or this Bill a magistrate would be justified in not interfering with an assembly if he considered that it would tend more to the preservation of the public peace that he should not interfere. The clause preventing a person from being proceeded against both for a misdemeanour for being present, and in a summary way for not departing after command, was necessary to protect the subject from a danger to which he ought not to be exposed.

The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH

still thought, in regard to the former point, that the language was imperative upon the magistrate; and, as to the latter, that the punishment annexed to the double offence of being present and not departing within the time limited, ought not to be lighter than the punishment for merely being present.

LORD CAMPBELL

had no doubt that those who had to administer the law would see that the punishment awarded was just.

The EARL of ENNISKILLEN

did not rise for the purpose of saying a word against the Bill, but merely to express a hope that temperance processions might not be left out. He feared that advantage would be taken of the omission.

The EARL of RODEN

did not wish to say anything against a measure the object of which was to put an end altogether to party proceesions in Ireland. All he should say was, that if the Bill had been the same as that of 1845, he would have given it all the opposition in his power, because that was a one-sided measure, affecting only the anniversaries of the Orangemen, while the opposite party were left to act as they thought fit. He thought that the Bill could not be made too stringent, as his firm belief was, that no procession could be formed in Ireland without its eventually becoming a party procession. He did not know to whom the noble Marquess's quotation, about fools rushing in, applied; but, if it applied to the Orangemen, he could only say that such language was not held by Her Majesty's Government in 1848, when the Orangemen ranged themselves in procession on the side of law and order. Of the present measure he had nothing to complain, and he felt sure that the Orangemen would be the first to give it effect, by refraining from those processions which they had so much enjoyed and so frequently indulged in.

LORD MONTEAGLE

thought it an important object that the Bill should be as comprehensive as stringent; if the words used were not sufficient to embrace all phases of an evil, it would inevitably spring up in some shape. With relation to temperance processions, there was no one evil connected with political or party processions that was not capable of being revived under that title. He spoke not only prospectively, but as a witness, in reference to what he had himself seen. With the Irish peasantry, in this as in other matters, the certainty of punishment was one of the great objects to be aimed at in the suppression of crime. He hoped the Bill might be successful, but as to the peace of the country, he doubted whether it could be attained, so long as the possession of arms by the peasantry was left wholly without restriction, without regulation, and without protection to the peaceful inhabitants. He was not now suggesting extreme or unconstitutional measures, but he must say that the possession of arms by the peasantry, whether the man was a dis- turber of the peace, or a faithful subject of the Crown, was equally dangerous. In the one case it brought down vengeance on him for keeping arms in his own defence; in the other it became the instrument of crime in his own hands or those of others. He thought, however, an Arms Act, to produce all the good effects that might be expected from it, should be permanent, and not annual.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE

thought the question of an Arms Act one of the most difficult that could be mooted. On different occasions these Acts had been proved an intolerable restriction, and injurious to well-affected persons, whilst arms were found in the possession of those who ought not to have them. Another difficulty was the disinclination of people of all classes in Ireland to execute an Arms Act. He believed that the Act introduced by the noble Earl opposite, when a Member of the late Government, was very well framed; the failure of it was not due to the manner in which it was framed, but to the inertness of the magistrates who ought to have attended to it. In short, it was not in accordance with the feelings and wishes of the community, and therefore was not put in force. He was in a condition to show the number of troops and stipendiary magistrates sent down to the north of Ireland to a very considerable amount on the anniversary of July, 1848, and their Lordships would at once see that the obligation which the Irish Government thought incumbent on them to provide against breaches of the peace in the north of Ireland, led to a serious diminution of the amount of force at their command in other parts of the country. If any credit was to be given to any portion of the Irish of any class, for any degree of common sense, he did not think that the objections which had been taken against this Bill would be found valid in practice. If there were any discretion left, either at common law or under this Bill, he could not think there would be those means of escape to persons committing misdemeanours which had been apprehended. It was impossible to make an Act so stringent that some way would not be found of eluding it; but this Bill was directed against all party processions indiscriminately, and not one could take place without its being brought under the operation of the law—for a temperance society to have a procession would at once bring it under the Act.

The EARL of GLENGALL

thought there would be no difficulty in passing an Arms Act. He wished to see the nature of the different sorts of processions more clearly defined in the present Bill.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE

did not think the Bill required any material amendment, but the suggestions made would be carefully considered.

Bill read 2°.

House adjourned till To-morrow.