(NOS. 77–94.) COMMITTEE. REPORT. (Hansard, 4 May 1871)

§ LORD REDESDALE
called attention to the fact that the inquiry on which this measure was founded had been conducted in the other House, while the Bill itself was brought forward in this House. 130 Such a course of procedure was open to objection, especially as it had been said with justice that one reason why Bills were not initiated here so frequently as noble Lords desired was that Bills originating in this House were not always received with favour in the other House. Such disfavour was very likely to happen in the case of a Bill like this, which seriously restricted the liberty of the subject, and some good reason should be given why this measure was initiated in this House. He would suggest that the 1st of August, 1873, instead of the 1st of June, should be fixed as the date of its expiration, for a change of Ministry or a Dissolution might render its renewal difficult before the latter date.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
ventured the other night, on an objection being offered to the introduction of the Bill, to remark that that objection was inconsistent with the complaints constantly made against Her Majesty's Government for not finding their Lordships occupation early in the Session, when the pressure of business was very light. So far as the House of Commons was concerned, there was already such a press of business before it that any additional business seemed very likely to bring things to a dead lock. As to the objection raised by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) against an inquiry in one House and the initiation of legislation in the other, this was a mere matter of convenience. He denied the assumption of his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) that this House was to be considered friendly to and anxious to pass measures of coercion, or those restricting the liberty of the subject. Evidence to the contrary was furnished in Tuesday night's debate on the second reading, in the speeches of a noble Earl (Earl Russell) who was exceedingly jealous of the liberty of the subject, and of his noble Friend on the cross-benches (Earl Grey), who objected to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. If, however, any such prejudice against Bills originating in this House existed, it was a reason for having the Westmeath Committee appointed by the other House; for, the object being to bring clearly before the public evidence already secured by the Government, it was desirable that it should be sifted by some representatives of the Irish people who were sure to exercise the greatest vigilance in such 131 a matter. As a matter of practical convenience it had been thought desirable to take advantage of the present leisure of their Lordships to introduce the Bill here, and he did not anticipate that there would be any desire in the House of Commons to reject this Bill merely on the ground that it had been first brought forward here.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD
said, he did not intend to propose any Amendment; but he would press on the Government the propriety of extending the area of the operation of the Bill, in deference to the opinions expressed on Tuesday night. He had somewhat of a personal interest in this, for he lived within the proscribed district, but near the boundary, and if called on to give assistance he might find offenders able to play at hide and seek with the law, by crossing over the boundary.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that he was unable to accept the noble Earl's suggestion. The point had been maturely considered by the Government. The Riband conspiracy existing almost alone in Westmeath and adjoining baronies, it was thought better not to extend the Bill to other districts, which were sufficiently provided for by the Peace Preservation Act.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
gave Notice that, as some noble Lords thought a Division should be taken on the point, he should on the third reading move an Amendment extending the area over which the measure was to operate.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he had to propose a verbal Amendment in Clause 7 which would have the effect of making the meaning of the clause more clear; but before doing so he wished to notice the remark of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) that the ordinary form of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act had not been adopted. The reason was that such a suspension in previous cases had only contemplated arrests for treason and treason-felony, as to which it was perfectly open to a magistrate to order the arrest, with or without warrant, of a suspected person; whereas the present Bill authorized the arrest of persons suspected of being members of the Riband Society or of being under the direction and influence of that conspiracy—an offence of a much less precise character. The Bill, in fact, gave an arbitrary power of arrest which could not be 132 defined by law. As to the criticism passed upon the wording of this 7th clause, it was rather a general direction to the Lord Lieutenant as to what was the mind and intention of Parliament, than a provision that was to be strictly construed.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
then stated that to meet the objection of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) as to the construction of the word "resides," he intended on the third reading to propose the addition of the words "or sojourns," which term was employed in the Peace Preservation Act. It was not meant that a person passing through the district should be liable to arrest, or that every passenger by the Midland Great Western Railway would come within the operation of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord had asked whether, as a suspected Ribandman residing in Westmeath might be arrested for complicity in an offence not committed within the district proclaimed, persons going into Westmeath were to be arrested only for a crime committed within the district. Now, the meaning of the clause was that a Westmeath Ribandman suspected of the commission of a crime in another county should be liable to arrest, but that persons residing in other localities, not tainted with Ribandism, should not be subject to arrest unless they came to Westmeath, and there committed an offence.

§ LORD CAIRNS
feared that "sojourn" was as difficult to define as "reside." It would be going rather far to regard a single day's stay as a residence or sojourn, yet this appeared to be implied by the words "any person who, on the 1st of January last, or on any subsequent day, was a resident." It seemed to him, according to the noble Earl's explanation, that this clause was to be taken as in the nature of a private instruction to the Lord Lieutenant in order to show him on what principle he was to proceed. It seemed to him (Lord Cairns) that this mode of legislation was rather anomalous, although there might not be much harm in it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
, in order to strengthen and make more clear the powers confided to the Lord Lieutenant, moved an Amendment which provided that any arrests made under the Bill 133 should be deemed legal by any Courts, Judges, or magistrates.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
proposed an addition to Clause 1, subjecting the prisoners to such orders and regulations for their treatment, management, and maintenance as the Lord Lieutenant shall from time to time make. He explained that when the Habeas Corpus Act was first suspended, inconvenience arose from the absence of any power of treating the persons arrested as untried prisoners. This defect was remedied when the measure was renewed; but as some of the regulations for untried prisoners might be inapplicable the present Amendment was necessary.

EARL GREY
agreed that this was necessary, but urged that it would be sufficiently secure by denying a prisoner interviews with his family or friends, except in the presence of an official. It would not be fair to prevent a man, confined without proof of his guilt, from seeing his friends at all.

LORD DUNSANY
reminded the noble Earl that these prisoners would not, like other unconvicted persons, require to see their solicitor in order to prepare for their trial. They would, moreover, be unconvicted by reason of their guilt, as but for their connection with Ribandism they might easily be convicted of murder or other offences. As to many of the conspirators, there was a moral, though not a legal, certainty of their guilt.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he would accept the Amendment for the sake of clearness, though it might not be actually necessary. The discretion which it would vest in the Lord Lieutenant would only be exercised in extreme cases, and it was not desirable to leave the matter to the discretion of the visiting magistrates.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
supported the Amendment, the Bill being avowedly an exceptional one called for by exceptional circumstances. What was desired was that the feeling of terror should be transferred from the peaceable and orderly to the conspirators, whose guilt, though it had not been capable of legal proof, might be notorious.