PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 8 March 1850)

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
moved the Order of the Day for the Third Reading of this Bill.

§ The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH
moved an Amendment on the second and third clauses, by taking out the words "that it shall and may be lawful for any magistrate to proceed to any place where an unlawful assembly is about to take place," &c., and Substituting "that it shall be lawful for any magistrate," &c.—his object being to leave it optional to the magistrate, and not compulsory.

The LORD CHANCELLOR
objected to the proposed alteration. It was left optional to the magistrate whether or not he should interfere by force to disperse the meeting, because perhaps he might not have the means; but when once the meeting was declared unlawful, those present 526 were under an obligation to disperse, and if they refused they might afterwards be prosecuted and punished.

LORD STANLEY
objected to the wording of the Bill as most ambiguous and calculated to mislead the magistrates.

LORD CAMPBELL
said, that the Bill was verbatim et literatim the same as had been introduced by the noble Lord himself when he was Secretary for Ireland, and which had been the law of the land for many a long year.

LORD BROUGHAM
said, he had come down purposely to support the Amendment proposed by his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) if it were persisted in; but he begged to suggest to his noble Friend the propriety of withdrawing it, for this reason: it was now the 8th day of March. It was extremely important that the Bill should be passed into a law before the 17th, that being one of the days on which some of those party processions were accustomed to take place in Ireland. If the clause against the carrying of arms out of doors by any person were passed through that House, it might, and indeed he had received an intimation which led him to believe it very possible that the clause would, be opposed so determinedly in the other House that, although there was no doubt the Bill with the clause would be ultimately carried, yet it could not possibly be carried in time to have effect as law on the approaching 17th. He therefore suggested to his noble Friend that he would best subserve the object he had in view by withdrawing the clause and introducing it in the form of a separate Bill. He (Lord Brougham) thought it of such exceeding importance that he was determined to support it in either form, but he thought the separate Bill would be the better course.

§ The DUKE of WELLINGTON
moved the Amendment of which he had given notice, viz.:— And for the more effectual prevention of all assemblages of persons in Ireland, bearing, wearing, or having amongst them or any of them, any fire-arms or other offensive weapons, be it enacted, that where any persons, being assembled together to the number of three or more, shall bear, wear, or have amongst them or any of them, any firearms or other offensive weapon, it shall be lawful for any justice or justices of the peace to seize, or, by order to any constable or other person, to cause to be seized and detained, for the use of Her Majesty, any such fire-arms or other offensive weapon; and such justice or other person shall immediately after such seizure and detention transmit to the 527 Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, or to his or their chief or under secretary, a written account of the numbers and nature of such fire-arms or other offensive weapons, and of the place where, and of the person or persons from whom, the same were respectively seized. He had already given his reasons for thinking that that provision which he was about to submit to their Lordships should be made, to prevent those evils which had not been uncommon in Ireland, and which had been brought before their Lordships in the discussions on the Dolly's Brae affair. It was the common practice of both parties to attend such ceremonies with arms in their hands, and for one party to endeavour by violence and force of arms to interrupt those ceremonies. It was his wish to prevent such violence from taking place in future by enabling magistrates in Ireland effectually to prevent those collisions likely to take place on such occasions. The clause, however, of which he had given notice, from what had fallen the other evening from the noble Marquess, was likely to be rejected elsewhere, and as he did not wish to delay the present Bill he should not press it.

LORD BROUGHAM
could not conceive that the insertion of the clause would result in the rejection of the Bill elsewhere. The Bill was a good general measure, but it was most desirable that they should make it as effective as possible.

§ The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH
reminded their Lordships that this was not merely a Bill to put a stop to party processions on the 17th of March next, but it was a measure for all times, and therefore it should be perfect in its powers, and applicable to all circumstances of the condition of Ireland. That it had been delayed until so near the 17th of March, was the fault of the Government only; for but for their laches it might have been introduced and sent up from the Commons at a much earlier period; and the argument that it was necessary to pass the Bill in order to avoid an anticipated collision on the 17th of March was, in his opinion, no sufficient reason for rejecting the Amendment. From what fell from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) when the subject was last under discussion, he understood him as not dissenting from the proposition of the noble Duke altogether, and that he held out a hope that if the Amendment were not pressed the Motion, would be taken up at a future time by the Government. Would the noble Marquess now pledge the 528 Government, if the clause were withdrawn, to bring in a measure for carrying out the same object? If the noble Marquess would give such a pledge, the noble Duke would be justified in not pressing his claim; but, if not, he hoped he would persevere.

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
was certainly not prepared to give any such pledge as the noble Lord required. The noble Lord had done him the honour to refer to what had fallen from him upon a former occasion. What had passed upon the occasion to which he had referred was, that he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had said that if he found himself compelled—reluctantly compelled—to oppose the Amendment of the noble Duke, it would not be because he entertained any settled opinion in opposition to it, but because no such addition was necessary for the prevention of the carrying of arms in Ireland. It was well known that the existing law was sufficient. Upon another occasion he had said (speaking with respect to a Bill some clauses of which he disapproved of) that it would be probably expedient to propose some such Bill as that alluded to by the noble Lord, and that it might be a fit subject to propose to the House. The noble Duke had intimated that he was not disposed to insist upon the Amendment of which he had given notice. He thought that the House, the Government, and the public of Ireland were deeply indebted to the noble Duke for pursuing that course; and for this reason, that he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) considered it to be of infinite importance, and he knew that the noble Lord who was at the head of the Government of Ireland considered it to be of the last importance, that he should be enabled effectually to prevent the recurrence of those processions, whether of Catholics, Ribandmen, or Orangemen, that had been the cause of so much mischief in Ireland. For he should say, in confirmation of what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), that he was perfectly satisfied, from information that had reached him, that the consequence of the adoption of the clause by the House would be, not perhaps to prevent the passing of the Bill, but to prevent its passing in time for it to have effect before the certain recurrence of those outrages which had been the cause of so much misery heretofore; because he felt himself justified in stating to the House (from information which the Government of Ireland had received) that there were 529 at the present moment preparations making by the Ribandmen in Ireland, for the purpose of trying the efficacy of the law, and reviving those proceedings on the 17th of March that had had such calamitous consequences hitherto. On the other hand, he knew, that, considering the differences of opinion that had always existed on the subject of Arms Bills, if that Bill were returned with the clause to the House of Commons, so far from its being available for the preventing of those processions, or making the carrying of arms in general an offence against the law, the effect would be to introduce such a source of provocation and an amount of opposition to it that it would infallibly (according to the ordinary course of Parliamentary proceedings) be impossible that it could be passed into a law by the 17th of March. He would recall the attention of their Lordships to one of the satisfactory results of the mode in which the Bill had been introduced—and there he begged to say, in reply to the observation of the noble Lord about the laches of the Government, that no time had been lost in the introduction of it—which was, that it had met with the unanimous support of both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord at the head of the Irish Government had attached the greatest consequence to its unanimous adoption, and he had the utmost hopes of its success. If the noble Puke introduced the subject of his clause in the form of a separate Bill, its provisions, which it must be admitted by all were very strong, might be accompanied by those guards against abuse which could not be conveniently introduced into a clause, but would find place in a Bill—guards which would be necessary for the protection of innocent persons. But he would remind the noble Duke, that, even if he did not think proper to introduce a separate Bill upon the subject, there was a Bill connected with the subject of arms which should come up in the course of the present Session; because the Act which had been passed about three years ago to enable the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim counties in Ireland—and which his noble Friend at the head of the Irish Government told him he considered to have been the most effectual Arms Bill that had ever been passed, and which, whilst the most effectual, had not occasioned any comment, although it was in force at present throughout more than two-thirds of Ireland—would cease to have effect in the course of the present Session. 530 He pledged himself that the Government would propose to renew that Bill in the course of the present Session. There would then be an opportunity given to consider whether it should be again passed in the precise form in which it had been passed originally, or whether an Amendment should be introduced, calculated to do that which was the object of the noble Duke's clause.

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
thought the Act defective, inasmuch as the arms of persons attending the illegal meeting or processions would not be forfeited if they dispersed after the order or command in the Act was read or repeated, while the possessors would not be subject to the penalty. If, for instance, no magistrate was present to read the order, there could be no forfeiture of arms at all; and either in that case, or where a number of persons attended an unlawful procession, they could return home with their arms, which might be used to perpetrate outrages on their opponents. No Irish magistrate would refuse to inform their Lordships that forfeiture was the most operative means of preventing any display of arms. He therefore begged leave to move the following clause, which applied the principle of forfeiture of arms and penalty to persons at party processions, whether they refused to disperse or not:— And be it enacted, that all fire-arms or other offensive weapons or ammunition which shall be borne, employed, or be in the possession of any person forming part of any assembly or procession, and attendance upon which is subjected to penalty under this Act, shall be forfeited to the use of Her Majesty, whether the order or command under this Act provided shall have been read or repeated or not, or whether after the reading or repeating of the same such assembly or procession shall have dispersed or not; and any such person who shall neglect to refuse to deliver up such arms, offensive weapon, or ammunition as aforesaid to any magistrate, police officer, constable, or other peace officer, when required so to do, shall for every such refusal or neglect be subject to the fines and penalties in this Act already set forth, which penalties shall be recoverable in the summary manner, and be subject to like imprisonment in default of payment, as has already been provided in respect to the summary recovery of the other penalties under this Act. This clause involved no new principle. It merely provided for the forfeiture of the arms, and a penalty in case of refusal in those cases where the Bill declared the carrying of arms to be illegal. He could not conceive that any objection would be 531 made to this clause, or that it would peril the passing of the Bill elsewhere, seeing its purpose was merely to carry out more effectually the objects of the measure, and prevent the possession of arms in cases no less dangerous than those in which the Bill provided a similar forfeiture and penalty.

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
observed, the clause would lead to an infinity of disputes, and perhaps to riot and violence, as a peace-officer or constable might seize whatever arms he thought proper. It might, besides, lead to considerable and undesirable delay in the progress of the Bill, which might be stopped in the other House. He would however, withdraw his opposition to the clause, if the noble Lord confined the forfeiture and penalty to the discretion of the magistrate, and not of the constable.

§ The DUKE of RICHMOND
observed, that when persons attending such meetings were told that the law would not allow them to carry arms, the best way of carrying out the law was to seize their arms if they took them there. It was surely desirable that they should enforce the principle they laid down, that parties should not attend processions with arms in their hands. It was impossible they could carry them for any good purpose: why then should there be any tenderness about depriving them of them?

§ EARL GREY
remarked, that provision was already made to prevent parties from carrying arms at processions, or attending party processions, and powers were given to the magistrates to require the parties assembled at such processions to disperse and give up their arms, and in case of refusal to seize the arms and impose a penalty; this clause, therefore, was unnecessary.

LORD STANLEY
said, that as the Bill stood, if the meeting dispersed on being required by a magistrate to do so, no forfeit of arms took place, and no penalty was inflicted; and if they refused to give a power of seizure, if the parties appeared with arms in their hands, whether they dispersed or not they would leave it open to evil-disposed persons to assemble in places where it might be difficult immediately to procure the attendance of a magistrate, and carry on those acts of violence which the purpose of the Bill was to put a stop to.

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
did not think his proposition was understood by the Government. An armed meeting was held in contravention of that Act, the magistrate 532 might have no cognisance of the fact, and if no magistrate was present to give the notice, no forfeiture or penalty was incurred. But the armed meeting was as illegal in the one case as in the other, and the same penalties should attach to those who took part in it. In the Dolly's Brae affair, one of the reasons why the procession was not dispersed was, that the magistrates feared if the people were dispersed with the arms in their hands, crime and bloodshed would in all probability ensue. But if it were known that any person appearing with arms in his hand, the arms would be forfeited and might be seized, that would operate as the best preventive against that practice.

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
still thought it would be better not to encumber the Bill with this clause. He admitted that the object was desirable, but could not consent to entrust such a power to any policeman or constable.

§ The DUKE of RICHMOND
suggested that the words policeman or constable should be omitted, and that the power of demanding the arms should be confied to the magistrate.

§ LORD MONTEAGLE
accepted the suggestion, and

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
agreed to accept the clause so amended.

§ The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH
proposed the insertion of a clause to render more clear the meaning of the fourth clause, which, as explained by him in a former debate, was open to misconception. The purport of his clause would be to provide that the punishment under the Bill should not interfere with proceedings at common law, wherever the common law had been violated.

The LORD CHANCELLOR
explained that the first clause of the Bill expressly reserved all the powers of the common law to punish the offences it specified; for the persons committing them for the first time were not liable to the penalties of the Act, but to the penalties of misdemeanour at common law. The third clause, however, created a new offence, for which no penalty was fixed by common law, to which it was unknown; but then came the penalties of a summary character, provided by the Act itself. It was evident the common law prosecution for misdemeanour would not be affected by the Bill, as the noble Earl seemed to suppose.

§ The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH
would not press his clause, after the Lord Chancellor's 533 statement of his view of the construction of the Bill as it stood.