SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 May 1872)

THE EARL OF DUFFERIN
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he never addressed the House with greater pleasure than he did on the present occasion, when he asked their Lordships to consent to the repeal of this Act. For a long time past he had entertained a strong conviction that the effect of this Act remaining on the Statute Book was very different from the effect it was intended to have had by its promoters. Instead of imposing equal restrictions upon all party demonstrations in Ireland, and operating impartially against all sections of the community, it had, through circumstances peculiar to the country and over which the Government had no control, only reached one party, and had consequently come to be regarded as one-sided, vexatious, and unjust. It had, therefore, lost one essential characteristic which Acts of 364 this kind should possess. It would readily be understood that when an Act which was passed for the express purpose of preventing party processions only restrained one party and permitted another party to indulge in those very excesses from which the rival faction was debarred, instead of mitigating hostility and controlling animosity it was regarded as affording a triumph to one side and imposing unjust disabilities on the other. He did not propose to trouble their Lordships with any account of the circumstances under which this Bill was originally passed; nor need he describe those demonstrations to which it immediately pointed—unhappily, their Lordships were only too well acquainted with the sinister history of party demonstrations in Ireland—it was sufficient to state that, with no inconsiderable experience, and with only too accurate a sense of the difficulties with which they had to contend, Her Majesty's present Executive in Ireland had come to the conclusion that the common law provided powers amply sufficient to prevent a breach of the peace. More than once they had had occasion to take precautions against contingencies arising out of these demonstrations, and on every one of those occasions they had found the powers conferred upon them by the common law sufficient for their purpose. Not only had they found they never had any occasion to resort to the powers conferred upon them by this Act, but they also had occasion to observe that this Act itself was regarded with the greatest disfavour by a considerable portion of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. These persons complained—and he thought with justice—that whereas in the South of Ireland party processions, banners, colours, and tunes were paraded with perfect impunity, sometimes not without leading to sinister consequences, in the North similar demonstrations were pronounced by law to be illegal, and those who had taken part in them had been subjected, under previous Administrations, to fine and imprisonment. God forbid that he should appear as the advocate or apologist of any unnecessary act which could in the slightest degree offend or wound either the reasonable or the unreasonable susceptibilities of any class of his fellow-countrymen; whenever such performances had occurred he had always been the first to deprecate and to condemn 365 them. At the same time, it must be remembered that there were districts of the country where the unity of religion and political sentiment was so complete that these demonstrations incurred no risk whatever of interruption or of giving offence to those who did not take part in them. In those districts they were simply regarded as for holiday occasions, and women and children frequently took part in them. Of course, there were other districts the circumstances of which were very different: yet even in those districts it must be remembered that, in the original conception of those demonstrations, no slight whatever was intended either to the religious or political sympathies of those who were opposed to them. So far was this from being the case, that he believed originally, even in Derry, both Roman Catholics and Protestants took equal pride in commemorating the Siege of Derry; and he was not afraid to confess that, to anyone to whom the records of Irish bravery and courage were dear, the reminiscences afforded both by the defence of Derry and the defence of Limerick were equally subjects of justifiable pride. Unfortunately, however, since the Roman Catholic population of Derry had increased, the demonstrations there had assumed a very different aspect, and they had come to be regarded with unmistakable hostility by a great proportion, if not by a majority, of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. As a consequence, it had been necessary to take extraordinary precautions against a breach of the peace. Of course, it would always be the duty of the Government to maintain peace and prevent bloodshed, and to continue to take the same precautions in the future that they had taken in the past. With the powers granted under this Bill the Government were of opinion that they would be in a better condition than ever to exercise these essential functions, and to prevent conflicts and stop the effusion of blood. It was his misfortune to have found himself on one occasion in the midst of the carnage arising out of one of these feuds, where he had seen a greater number of dead and wounded persons taken from the field than had often fallen on board the leading line-of-battle-ships, in one of England's bloodiest naval victories. In any event, feuds and broils of this kind did not need to be fomented by the provisions 366 of an Act of Parliament which was distasteful both to those in whose favour it was passed, and to those against whom it operated. But, while pressing their Lordships to agree to the repeal of this Act, he could not help also addressing an appeal to his fellow-countrymen in Ireland, beseeching them in taking advantage of the privileges Parliament was thus willing to restore to them, to do so with forbearance and caution; to forbear from exercising them in those districts where they were likely to give offence or likely to lead to breaches of the peace, and to show a generous and magnanimous consideration for the reasonable, or even unreasonable, prejudices and susceptibilities of the rest of their fellow-countrymen.

§ LORD CAIRNS
joined with his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Dufferin) in expressing the very great pleasure it had given him to find that it was thought possible to propose to Parliament the repeal of this Act. It was his fate, when he had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons, very often to urge on the Government of the day the repeal of that statute; and he felt the Government now took a wise course in proposing its repeal. The details of the statute and the cognate Act subsequently passed were so petty, the annoyances under it were so continuous and so minute, that it often appeared to him vain to expect that any people professing to be free would long submit to them. Another reason why he thought the statute had been productive of evil consequences, however excellent the intentions of those who proposed it, was this—he believed it to be utterly impossible for any Government, he would not say to execute its provisions impartially, but to avoid the suspicion of executing them with partiality. He believed that every Government, of whatever party, was always in a position of suspicion. Those who considered themselves in Opposition were always watching with the keenest and most scrupulous eyes to discover some case in which they thought the Government had failed to enforce the Act against their opponents. That had been the uniform position of the Irish Government under these Acts. He thought there was another very serious 367 objection to the provisions of such statutes. He was afraid it was part of our human nature which must be dealt with that if you subjected people to petty curtailments of what they naturally consider their privileges, many would take a kind of pleasure and delight in trying to balk and violate the law which they thought improperly fettered and restrained their free action. That was eminently the case with these statutes. He believed that even women and children took a pleasure in displaying banners, guns, and pikes, and marched in procession simply to show their contempt for the law. He cordially joined in the appeal of his noble Friend to their fellow-countrymen in Ireland that they would show their good sense by abstaining from these processions; and he believed the most effectual way of inducing them to do so was to leave the people free and unfettered in matters so minute and trifling in themselves. He rejoiced the repeal of these statutes had been proposed, and he hoped the Government would find that, in place of the Executive being weakened in Ireland, the common law would be found sufficient.

THE EARL OF ENNISKILLEN
was understood to express his approval of the measure.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
approved the repeal of the Act, for the actual result of the action of the Government under it had been the permission of Fenian meetings, while Protestant meetings in the North had been interfered with. It was, therefore, desirable that the Processions Act should be repealed.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that in view of the happy unanimity that prevailed on both sides of the House as to the wisdom of repealing this Act, it was not his intention to have addressed their Lordships on the subject; but he could not allow the statement of the noble Lord who had just spoken to go forth uncontradicted. He emphatically denied the noble Lord's statement. No Government—and certainly not the present one—had ever permitted a Fenian meeting. Undoubtedly there had been meetings held by what were called the Green Party in Ireland, and these could not, according to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, be touched by the Party Processions Act. Hence 368 had arisen an appearance of partiality which was much to be deplored. That was one reason why these Acts ought to be repealed.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
explained. He might instance two meetings, one held on the occasion of the funeral of a Fenian, and the other in Dublin, on the raising of a statue to Mr. Smith O'Brien, a convicted rebel.